Best business & money books according to Reddit

Reddit mentions of Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.)

Sentiment score: 26
Reddit mentions: 75

We found 75 Reddit mentions of Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.). Here are the top ones.

    Features:
  • Freakonomics
  • Economist
  • Everything
Specs:
Height8 Inches
Length5.3125 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateAugust 2009
Weight0.6 Pounds
Width0.792793 Inches
#18 of 12,862

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 75 comments on Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.):

u/blackinthmiddle · 73 pointsr/politics

> This whole article is nonsense.

An opinion is only as good as the evidence that backs it up. You say it's ludicrous, but the facts say otherwise.

And just to let you know, if you've ever read Freakonomics, it goes through a very thorough explanation of why Guiliani's tough on crime policies that dropped the rate of crime in the city probably didn't do anything, as crime dropped throughout the entire country. Of course, the question becomes why did crime drop? Surprisingly, they give a majority of credit to Roe v. Wade. And again, the book backs up that assertion with raw data, not just emotional statements like you saying, "BAH, THIS IS NONSENSE!!! ARRRRGGGHHH!!!"

So...do you have some actual proof to back up your assertion?

u/zeedevil · 34 pointsr/AskReddit

I forget what this phenomenon is called but there's an entire chapter about it in this book.

u/EricksA2 · 18 pointsr/todayilearned

Halitosis as we know it today is the product of the Listerine company.

For years they tried to find uses to sell their product. It started off as a surgical antiseptic for wounds. Then it became a household antiseptic, a floor cleaner, a cold and sore throat remedy, and even a douche that was capable of curing gonorrhea.

Finally they decided to market it as a mouth wash. However, mouth washes didn't exist. Bad breath existed and there were means to deal with it; however, it wasn't that big of an issue to people and no one felt as self-conscious about it as they do today. So the Listerene company made use of the relatively-obscure medical term called "Halitosis" and marketed its product as the way to cure this horribly embarrassing disease that you didn't know you had.

Their massive marketing campaign changed the entire public's opinion on bad breath. They ran ads such as a bride second-guessing marrying her fiance because he has bad breath, stating "Can I be happy with him in spite of that?" Bad breath was no longer something that can be overlooked. It is something that reflects very badly on the person and it is now a disorder that can and should be treated. Thanks to their Halitosis marketing campaign, their revenue went from $115,000 to $8 million in just seven years.

Sources:

Wikipedia

Freakonomics

Advertising the American Dream

u/Apetn · 13 pointsr/AskSocialScience

For intro sociology, I'd recommend some preachy nonfiction. They are written for laymen but introduce the sociological style of approach. Something like Fat Land or Uninsured in America.

Freakanomics is not exactly sociology, but could be an interesting read for someone interested in social economics / group behavior. Jonathan Kozol is a reporter, not a sociologist, but his stories mix investigative reporting with a human element to focus on topics of interest to the field of sociology. I remember Nickel and Dimed also being a good read.

The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down is not a book about sociology, but rather a specific example of culture clash within the context of medical care. That being said, it is a big reason why I decided to become a social worker (which is a profession in line with the two fields mentioned in your post).

A Place at the Table is a movie that might fit the bill.

Note: I'm American. I imagine other places would have different topics of interest.

Edited: add movie and fix format

u/[deleted] · 10 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Economics is a pretty broad subject, is there anything in particular you're interested in? I'll list some sources that I find interesting and that have spurred my interest in economics.


Behavioral Economics

  • Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely, MIT Professor
    -One of the most engaging books about economics I've read.


  • Freakonomics by Steven Levitt
    -Applying economics to every day life, has a good chapter on how the average crack dealer makes less than minimum wage.

    Macroeconomics
    (Big picture economics)

    Austrian School
    (Popularized, not originated, with Friedrich Hayek and generally take a laissez faire approach to the economy)

  • Relevant reddit thread from about a month ago
  • Relevant youtube video re: Hayek vs Keynes
  • Wikipedia

    Keynesian School
    (Based on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, advocates government intervention in the economy to smooth the otherwise turbulent waves of the business cycle)

  • The Return of Depression Era Economics, Paul Krugman
    -Haven't read this one, but Krugman is one of the more famous Keynesians.
  • Wikipedia

    Chicago School

    Notable Economists:

  • Milton Friedman : Monetarism,
  • Gary Becker : Human Capital,
  • Richard Thaler : Most notable for Behavioral Finance and his Anomalies series of papers in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

    Microeconomics
    (How households / firms make decisions to allocate limited resources. Couple sub categories here, mainly Game Theory and some types of Behavioral Economics)

  • I don't know many casual books that talk about microeconomics. Most of my knowledge is derived from academia. I can recommend good textbooks but I don't think you'd be interested in reading those.

    Casual Books about Economics

  • Economics in One Lesson
    -Pretty sure this is available online for free.
  • Naked Economics
    -Read this a long time ago before I started seriously pursuing economics. Decent introduction to things like opportunity cost and other simple economic concepts.


    Because there is so much information available about economics you might feel a little overwhelmed. That's fine, the important thing is to always keep an open mind and not to dismiss certain theories / information based on a few people's opinions. For example, a lot of people bash on Keyensians these days (and mostly for good reason) but it's important to note that Keyensian economics as its practiced today is vastly different than what John Maynard Keynes had in mind in the early to mid 1900s. Just keep an open mind and form your own opinion.

    I'm sure I forgot a ton of stuff so hopefully other people can fill in what I missed.
u/gigamosh57 · 7 pointsr/RealEstate

This was from a chapter in the original Freakonomics book.

u/FacepalmNation · 6 pointsr/answers

Freakonomics says the dominant factor for the drop in crime was abortion legalization.

u/alohafromalesha · 6 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Freakonomics: by Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner

Just very fascinating, makes you think.

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060731338/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_1cPxCbMR2SG2J

u/Narrative_Causality · 6 pointsr/wtfstockphotos

This worked really well for the Freakonomics cover. It...doesn't work so well with a banana.

u/Gazzellebeats · 5 pointsr/LetsGetLaid

>I don’t regret having one, just extremely ashamed of being sexual and communicating it to girls and also showing it to the world. Attracting girls’ attention and whatnot isn’t very hard but progressing things to dating, holding hands and eventually sex is impossible. I can’t even call them or message them on Facebook or Whatsapp because I just feel like an idiot for doing so. Making a move in clubs and bars is also difficult although I once got close to leaving with a girl but she didn't want to. I got made fun of a lot growing up for not having a girlfriend and this made me feel like i do not deserve one. It doesn't matter if I've got the green light to go ahead I just feel really ashamed do it. Even something like looking at a fit girl wearing a short skirt makes me feel bad for checking her out and that I shouldn’t be doing it.


I know what you mean. I've been there myself, but even when I was there I was entirely self-aware of my shame and I was skeptical of the validity of my emotional reactions; I realized they were ingrained. Being aware of your emotional reactions allows you to be emotionally proactive. Your sex-negative problem is mostly an emotional issue, and not much else, right? I've been there. I wouldn't doubt that you are also decent looking and have both latent and actualized social skills. Most intelligent introverts have a lot of potential to be who they want to be because they know themselves more deeply than others. You must use your introverted nature to your advantage and recognize the differences in others and yourself. In all honesty, there are an infinite number of unwritten rules; everyone's abstract/emotional logic is different. Many of them are foundational and predictable, however; including yours and mine. Like anything else, being emotionally predictable is not a black/white issue. It is a grey area, and you have to balance your reliability with creativity.


Being made fun of for not having a girlfriend is just as sexist as being made fun of for not having a boyfriend; gender equal too. Were you ever shamed for not having a boyfriend? It's clearly a matter of groupthink and extroverted style; not for everyone. Dating relationships, for extroverts especially, are often attention-getting and showy. They wear their relationships like trophies won. Usually introverts prefer a more private relationship because they have less social desire and are often shamed because of it. Introverts are “themselves” more often in private. Extroverts are “themselves” more often in public. There is no shame deserved either way, regardless of popular opinion. Both styles have their strengths and weaknesses, and you should try to introject some of the traits that you enjoy in others; regardless of type. That is how you become balanced.


>I’m receiving counselling from a pastor who advocates the whole “no sex before marriage” thing and believes that people should only date to get married and sex is only for making kids which is stupid IMO because I do not plan on getting married anytime soon.


Counseling from a Catholic pastor? Watch out, that is one of the most notorious sex-negative societies out there. They own the abstinence-only charade while they parade horribles. Marriage is not the answer to anything; it is an institution of the state. Anything else attached is sentimental.


If you haven't already, I recommend doing an in-depth study of animal sexual behaviors; especially the most intelligent animals. All animals have sex for pleasure, but some animals are only driven to have sex at certain times of the year; humans are on a 24/7 system.


>I’ve tried the no fap route and gotten very high days counts but that hasn’t really helped me at all.


Sexual frustration doesn't help anyone. If you are mindful, then you can use your libido to further your goals, but it is not an all-cure.


>Got any sources to help overcome sex-negative perspectives? I’m interested in recreational sex not baby making sex.


Absolutely. I recommend starting with actual sex science and learning about male and female psychology and neurology. Then work your way into reading about sex culture. You should also study developmental psychology as you will probably need the clinical context in order to objectively self-evaluate your childhood influences; it is necessary for self-therapy. The best therapy will always be self-therapy; no one will ever know you better than yourself.


Evolutionary Science and Morals Philosophy:

The Selfish Gene

The Moral Landscape

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?


Sex Psychology, Science, and Neurology:

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex

The Female Brain

The Male Brain

Why Men Want Sex and Women Need Love

What Do Women Want

Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)

Sex: The world's favorite pastime fully revealed


Behavioral Psychology and Abstract Economics:

How Pleasure Works

Freakonomics

Quiet: The Power of Introverts In A World That Can't Stop Talking

Thinking Fast And Slow

We Are All Weird


Developmental Psychology:

Nurture Shock

Hauntings: Dispelling The Ghosts That Run Our Lives


Empathy Building:


Half The Sky

The House On Mango Street

Me Before You

The Fault In Our Stars

Also check out James Hollis' Understanding The Psychology of Men lecture if you can find it.



Movies: XXY, Tom Boy, Dogtooth, Shame, Secretary, Nymphomaniac, Juno, Beautiful Creatures, and The Man From Earth.



All of these things are related, but it is up to you to make the connections; pick and choose which material suits your interests best. These are the things that came to mind first, and they have all influenced my perspectives.

u/Connels · 4 pointsr/Economics

I'd recommend Freakonomics because it shows economics as the awesome discipline it really is.

u/optical_power · 4 pointsr/todayilearned

Maybe. I thought the decline in crime we due to the population changes caused by the liberalisation of abortion in the 70s.

Source: (freakenomics - Amazon)[http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338]

u/Thonlo · 4 pointsr/wisconsin

It was Freakonomics, yes. That chapter was fascinating. I wonder how much of it is accurate.

u/LawyeredOp · 3 pointsr/opiates

The drug game is greatly romanticized in our culture, but the reality is a stark contrast.

Freakonomics (I think it was this book) had a chapter exploring the drug game and found only lucrative at the very highest positions.

And that doesn't even touch on the risk of law enforcement involvement. Baltimore may have its hands too full go hammer lower-level drug dealers, but in the South we defense lawyers have a saying: sale means jail. 2-5 years to serve (though parole eligible fairly quickly), and if you're not facing it, someone that could flip on you is. On a long enough timeline, everyone's survival rate drops to zero.

In fact, in Georgia, a second sale of a schedule I or II is life eligible. On life, parole isn't even considered until 14 years in on non-violent offenses.

I'm not trying to shit on your dream, but the reality of the thing is vastly different from the average perception of the thing.

u/Arguss · 3 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

In that case, I found a lot of inspiration in the book American Progressivism: A Reader. It's a sampling of formative essays and speeches during the Progressive Era talking about reforming government, reducing corruption, and building a reliable administration. Reading it helps understand how the modern US government got to be where it is, because most of their proposals were eventually adopted.

I also read Leninism by Neil Harding, which went into the detail of the initial Communist revolution in Russia and how Lenin's political theories evolved as circumstances on the ground changed. I think it was helpful both in gaining more understanding of the history of the time and in learning about what Communism came to mean in a Russian context.

I liked Predictably Irrational and Freakonomics for really highlighting 1) economics is about incentives, and 2) our incentives sometimes lead us and markets astray, sometimes even in predictably bad ways.

The Myth of the Rational Market traces a history of financial economics going back to the early 1900s and how we conceptualized the idea of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. It also ends up introducing a lot of basic financial information I had in my finance classes.

The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and the World on Fire goes into specific detail about the financial crisis and how central banks across the world responded to it. Useful if you aren't familiar with the specifics of the crisis.

The Working Poor: Invisible in America helps explore the hopelessness and despair of the working poor, and how a poverty mindset can develop. It also shows how systems of late fees, overdraft fees, payday loans, lack of benefits for part-time workers, the cost of healthcare, etc all combine to really rig the world against the poor succeeding.

That's all I can think of for now.

u/LiveLongAndFI · 3 pointsr/UkrainianConflict

If you enjoy statistical analysis in this article you might like book Freconomics. It has two chapters dedicated to spotting fraud using statistical analysis.

u/TrapWolf · 3 pointsr/entj

Ain't No Makin' It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood

u/SlothMold · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

I'm getting a fast-paced, usually humorous vibe from your likes.

David Sedaris' humor essays have a difficulty level similar to Mary Roach, though he does daily life more often than science. Start with something like Me Talk Pretty One Day rather than his latest where there's useless filler pages. In a more data-driven vein, Freakonomics might make for a good read.

My Date With Satan is an oddball short story collection (about fucked up characters) with enough gems to make the book worthwhile. And Chuck Palahniuk should always be considered in the same vein as Christopher Moore.

If you want something humorous but more light-hearted, maybe A Barrel of Laughs, A Vale of Tears. Add philosophy to the mix and you get The Phantom Tollbooth.

Also, Feed and The Ear, The Eye, and The Arm should be considered as short reads if you liked World War Z and Neil Gaiman.

u/lechnito · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

Economics:

u/amznlnkprvdr · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

If you haven't heard of them, Freakonomics and the sequel Super Freakonomics are fascinating reads on microeconomics, but it also draws in on other social studies disciplines.

u/StoryDone · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

When you wish upon a star

I believe my favorite Pixar Disney movie is Lilo and stitch. My favorite song would be the song Nani sings to Lilo in the hammock.

Both bring to mind great memories.

Because there is connections in everything

u/strafefire · 2 pointsr/Economics
u/waitfornightfall · 2 pointsr/books

Off the top of my head:

The Psychopath Test is a wittily written personal study of detecting, treating and (possibly) rehabilitating psychopaths.

The Freakonomics books are written by both an economist and a journalist (so easy to read) and contain slightly left-of-centre economic theories with easy to follow research. These are excellent.

The Omnivores Dilemma is both engaging and though provoking. It's All about the production of food in the modern age. In particular, four different meals.

The Code Book is one of my all-time favourites. As the title suggests it's about all forms of cryptography. If you have a mathematical bent I also like Singh's book about Fermat's Enigma).

u/elementalizer · 2 pointsr/self

A good book that is fun to read and has tons of anecdotes about scientific history is A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson

In a similar vein, you can ponder the more mind-bending aspects of our Universe with Stephen Hawkings A Brief History of Time

Other than that you may find some interesting things in the works of Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins (I personally recommend Dawkins's The Selfish Gene)

If you are sick of scientific titles you can also check out Freakonomics or The Worldly Philosphers

These Books are all written for a general audience so they go down pretty easy.

Deciding which major in College can be tricky - I was lucky since I knew exactly what I wanted to study before I left High School, but maybe some ideas in these books will pique your interest. My parents always told me to go to school to study something I love, and not to train for a job. I'm not so sure this advice carries through in "recovering" economy. You may want to factor in the usefulness of your degree post-college (but don't let that be the only thing you consider!).

Good Luck, and enjoy!

u/ddoubles · 2 pointsr/norge

Det er så mange. Hva med:

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

norsk wikipedia omtale



Amazon er bra sted for å sjekke reviews.

Alternativt. Dokumentaren: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152822/

u/jillredhand · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

You're doing this wrong. If you approach books as a task for self-edification that you view as a duty, you're going to hate it. Read whatever you want, for entertainment. Read funnystuff. Read thrillers. Read fantasy. Read weird science fiction. Heck, read history, economics, and science.

TL;DR: Read whatever the hell you feel like, and I guarantee you you will feel better about yourself than you would have by forcing yourself through Ulysses or War and Peace.

u/Duke_Newcombe · 2 pointsr/funny

Sudhir Venkatesh, perhaps?

His book is very interesting--he's mentioned repeatedly in both "Freakonomics" books as well. Suhir, as well as Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner (authors of Freakonomics and Super Freakonomics) are the reasons Behavioral Economics is kind of a "hobby" of mine.

u/hikariing · 2 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Hi I'm not sure if these are the books you would enjoy, but I do have a couple of them in my pocket list:


Personally in recent years I'm interested in topics about algorithms/cryptology and economics, so The Code Book by Simon Singh, Fortune's Formula: The Untold Story of the Scientific Betting System That Beat the Casinos and Wall Street by William Poundstone, The Physics of Wall Street: A Brief History of Predicting the Unpredictable by James Owen Weatherall, these are the ones of my all time favorite "history" books about math and science and their applications. : )


I can still come up with another (popular) book, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, but I didn't really enjoy the book, guess I didn't agree some of the conclusions in that book. But maybe you would find it interesting. :)


Hope this helps! ☺️

u/SoakerCity · 2 pointsr/pics

Lol, thanks amigo!

I like to spend time and effort on good responses. Sometimes you just know that it was a waste of time. But other times it feels really good to have a dialogue with what I now presume is a pretty decent person. I really love reddit for times like these.

The intellectual quality and the civility of reddit has been on a steady decline, plus the corrupting influence of paid trolls and mentally ill people. But when the dust settles, its still a great forum for discussion.

I don't talk for a living, though I'm thinking about getting back into a white collar job. Your compliment is definitely encouraging. Thanks so much!

I agree with you on the desire of the currently incarecerated to want to change.

I don't agree with you AS much on the prison-as-deterrent point though. I think that the threat of incarceration is a bigger factor in discouraging crime than you might. I have nothing concrete to back that up though, just a gut feeling. You are right when the crime is a necessity though. But lets be real- how often is a crime an absolute necessity? On this note, the spelling of the word necessity is its own crime...

Assessing the outcomes of different prison policies is absolutely brutal. For example, the famous case of abortion vs tough on crime from Freakanomics

Setting prison policy is actually such a tricky and long term endeavor that its helpful to look at non-demorcatic and non western-shit I'll just go with "Free"- countries. At least for data.

Anyways, with the increasing of people being radicalized into Islam going on now, plus the changing drug laws, its prime time to look at the system right now.

Have a good night, and good luck out there!


u/freedomfun · 2 pointsr/InternetIsBeautiful

If you're interested for your own interest and not for college, I'd recommend starting with books written for a general audience like

The Cartoon Introduction to Economics

Freakonomics

The Armchair Economist

Spin Free Economics

Lastly, Lives of the Laureates offers biographical accounts of 23 Nobel Laureates in Economics. I find it interesting since it offers insights into the minds of the Laureates, their intellectual process, and some of the most important contributions within the economics community.

I also often recommend Economics in the Afterlife to people since it shows that economists have no shame and economics can really be applied to anything.

You could probably find PDFs online of some of these books if you were so inclined.

u/Overdose7 · 2 pointsr/pics

What jumps? You have only discussed income tax in our thread. You claimed you are "extremely overtaxed" and I showed you that was false. You said you wanted to be able to afford a house and I showed you that has little to do with taxes which was what you said right before claiming to be overtaxed.



I don't think this discussion is going to go much further. You have accused other commenters of being NPCs and not understanding Trump's "super complicated" moves, but you haven't shown much comprehension on basic economic and tax policies yourself. If you want to better understand why people don't seem to be as happy about a tax cut as you are then I would recommend starting with The Armchair Economist and Freakonomics.

u/weakflesh · 2 pointsr/WTF

This was discussed here in detail.

u/dogecoineconomist · 2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

Hopefully OP is still checking in on this thread.

You'll need to start with the basics by registering for 100 level courses at your school whether or not you're already familiar with the subject, so Intro to Microecon, Macroecon and International Economics would be a start.

If you'd like to do some independent reading (which I personally recommend), here is the recommended reading list from /r/Economics. Their wiki lists books by increasing difficulty starting form the basics.

I'd also like to throw in some non textbooks I've read (and are reading) that helped me get an understanding of important fundamentals and obtain an idea of how economists think.
Both of these authors do a great job of grabbing the reader with their outlandish and interesting examples to explain various theories.

Freakonomics - Steven Levitt
Naked Economics - Charles Wheelan

u/Trapper777_ · 2 pointsr/askscience

Cool. I would recommend checking out Freakonomics*, The Undercover Economist*, and 30-Second Economics. These are some (relatively) fun books that give a little insight into economics. ^*The ^sequels ^are ^great ^too.

And back to the experiment thing: remember that the decisions that people make when confronted with a choice is also economics, just like studying how a single photon moves is still physics, even though both are part of something much bigger.

u/emk2203 · 1 pointr/europe

Don't make me laugh. Executives plundering the company is exactly because there is no free market in play there. You can read this up in a chapter of Freakonomics as well.

And what risks do Execs have really? That the golden parachute payed too much and they get bored playing golf? They need to have a malus added because they have no risk of their own, compared to business owners.

u/antonbe · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

I've immersed myself in science and history my whole life and quite possibly the best book I've ever come across that condenses everything in a sequential order is "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.

> In A Walk in the Woods, Bill Bryson trekked the Appalachian Trail—well, most of it. In A Sunburned Country, he confronted some of the most lethal wildlife Australia has to offer. Now, in his biggest book, he confronts his greatest challenge: to understand—and, if possible, answer—the oldest, biggest questions we have posed about the universe and ourselves. Taking as territory everything from the Big Bang to the rise of civilization, Bryson seeks to understand how we got from there being nothing at all to there being us. To that end, he has attached himself to a host of the world’s most advanced (and often obsessed) archaeologists, anthropologists, and mathematicians, traveling to their offices, laboratories, and field camps. He has read (or tried to read) their books, pestered them with questions, apprenticed himself to their powerful minds. A Short History of Nearly Everything is the record of this quest, and it is a sometimes profound, sometimes funny, and always supremely clear and entertaining adventure in the realms of human knowledge, as only Bill Bryson can render it. Science has never been more involving or entertaining.

The book is simply amazing. I learn something new from it everytime I read it and I highly recommend it to everyone from an uneducated teenager to a PhD carrying senior!

While you're at it, I would also recommend the rest of his books. Bryson is an amazing nonfiction writer (I daresay one of the best in the world) and his penmanship will captivate you. Just search for him on Amazon and pick another one of his books up in a category that interests you as he writer about a very broad range of topics.

Edit: Also, I highly recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared M. Diamond. and Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt

u/Mablun · 1 pointr/exmormon

I love economics. And I love that you can take the toolsets it gives you and apply it to almost anything (Freakonomics style or in movie version).

I did less on the money/macro side so if you're interested in something like banking you might want to find someone with that focus and talk to them. Economics is a science and tries to use those type of tools to answer questions about people and society. It is probably the 'hardest' of the soft sciences but is really broad. You can combine it with business, law, psychology, sociology, big data / computer sciences, or government so it gives you a lot of options going forward as well. So I look at it as giving the pay/challenge/fun of engineering/science but with a wider range of career applications.

u/cdubs87 · 1 pointr/science

You should check out the book Freakonomics. In that, the author attributes the drop in crime in the 90's to the legalization of abortion. If I remember correctly, the thesis was that children stopped being born into low income (and crime-prone) families as often. Kind of harsh, but certainly interesting.

Also Gemermany sounds like an interesting place to visit.

u/fortmac · 1 pointr/AskSocialScience

This is the first book I read - Basic Economics By Thomas Sowell. The author is quite libertarian (which I am not) but I don't remember the book being particularly radical. I read the book 10 yrs ago but it stood out, definitely piqued my interest, and really helped things 'click' for me regarding basic economic theory. Diving directly into a micro 101 textbook or just reading 100 econ blogs would not be advised as you don't learn the basics and traditions. Give yourself a reason to be interested and the rest will follow.

Free to Choose is pretty valuable, though it can be more a work of political-economy. Freakonomics is also great because its easy/fun to read and gives you a good understand of just how super valuable numbers are.

These are all on the light side and not 'textbook' quality; however, I'm sure they'll pique your interest, give you a good foundation, and the rest will follow.

u/piyochama · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

Just to fill out the list by throwing in some right / conservative ones:

  1. Black Swan
  2. Freakonomics

    And as an absolute must, you should read this:
  3. Ascent of Money: this one is very, very conservative and gives you a good perspective on how financiers really view history.

    Also, you'd understand these books more if you had a good foundation in economics and finance.
u/yangtastic · 1 pointr/bestof

Man, last two days have been really busy, but I did wanna get back to this.

So... First off, maybe my "how 'bout some dick" reference didn't get picked up. I could have a woman approach me, and when I ask her out, take her to dinner, walk her home, kiss her goodnight, and leave, I'm really saying, "How 'bout some dick?" Hell, I might even be saying, "How 'bout some dick--for the rest of your life?" Ultimately, that's what all advances are, regardless of the form they take, which is why I said it was "some flavor" of the famous Chris Rock line.

Now... You seem to be advancing the argument that straight men should not hit on women in a bar (and one that we've already established is not a speakeasy and not a lesbian bar), because it might make the women uncomfortable. Now, I don't think you're actually committed to this claim--it's obviously a straw man--but I did want to discuss it for just a second, because it goes further than being simply ridiculous. If a woman IS in a bar--of this sort--and a man hits on her, no matter how inexpertly, if her reaction is to become "uncomfortable," then that is extremely problematic. Turn the situation around. If a straight man goes to a gay bar and (predictably) gets hit on by men, and becomes "uncomfortable" in response, instead of simply saying, "Sorry mate, straight but not narrow here; just didn't wanna be left out of all the fun for my friend's birthday," to as many gay boys as necessary, we would understandably take the guy to task. Moreover, we probably wouldn't stop at, "Idiot, what the hell did you think was going to happen at a bar where people hit on people that look like you?" we'd probably go further and ask him what his problem was, ask him exactly how prejudiced or bigoted he is.

Now obviously there are guys who won't take no for an answer. This is why God made bouncers. They're also a straw man--nobody thinks that they're OK in any bar, gay, straight, whatever, so I'm not going to waste time pretending I have to defend them.

But I'm not going to pretend that I've actually argued my point well if I say, "wooq thinks men shouldn't hit on women in bars, hilarious!" No, your point is a larger one about women having to endure men hitting on them in general.

Now, my point about the evolutionary biology was not "Durr, you and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals," but rather to illustrate that competition for mates is a function of biological economics and nothing else--notice that female hyenas have so much testosterone that they develop pseudopenises, but the males still compete for females. Given our biological economics, men will always compete for women, because women's biological stakes in sex, their risks, are higher. They're the ones with the valuable stuff that everybody wants, so they're the ones who get to choose who stays in the gene pool and who doesn't.

Now sure, mathematically, it's in a woman's best interest if she makes the first move. Biologically and culturally, that's not how things shake out. See, human rationality is really just not as common as we'd like to think. The simple fact of the matter is that women are more likely to want to get laid when they're ovulating. One of my female friends sets an alarm in her phone so she knows not to call any men for a few days. This phenomenon isn't an accident.

Nor is a man's desire to have sex with women. Nor is it any more "disgusting" than a woman's sexual urges. We're talking about something as natural and fundamental as hunger.

So if you've got food, and somebody asks you for it, you really can't fault them. After all, they need it to live, and moreover, they're physically incapable of getting any themselves. Now you don't owe it to them, and if they ask repeatedly and harass you, or try to take it by force, then by all means, fuck those guys. Nobody disagrees with that.

Last I checked, Emily Post held that because men bear the burden of making the first move, and because non-verbal signals (hell, even verbal signals) can be uncertain and misinterpreted, every single woman owes every single man one free pass, and it is in fact a breach of etiquette to take offense or hold it against him. (Obviously she also holds that shooting him down should be done with tact and sensitivity, and that a guy should accept being shot down with grace.)

Now, a rude advance is a rude advance, and that can be held against a man, but that's because it's rude, not because it's an advance.

We're human, sure, but part of being human is fucking. It's quite literally what made us human in the first place. More often than not, that means men asking women out.

Although, I mean, if you've got some plan for the propagation of the species that doesn't involve men asking women for sex, I'd love to hear it.

u/UserNme_AlreadyTaken · 1 pointr/jobs

Highly recommended reading- Buy-In by John Kotter

It's an excellent read for anyone interested in the practical application of psychology & sociology knowledge in the business realm.

http://www.kotterinternational.com/book/buy-in/

Economics reading - Freakonomics

This was required reading in my Leadership course (for my MBA), with good reason.

https://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338

You are on a path towards higher management and leadership.

From this point forward, the answer to the questions "do you think I made a good decision signing up for the post-graduate studies? Will potential employers look at it and consider this diploma as worthy?" will forever more be a resounding YES!!!!

High quality post graduate certifications, higher degrees, and continuously striving to learn, be better, & adapt to an ever changing business environment are hallmarks of those who are successful (& expected/required of those who are considered for higher level positions) in the business/management realms.

Edit: look for a post graduate course on leadership. If your employer is large enough, they may have an agreement with a respected University to offer discounts or special classes to their employees, & may even offer classes onsite. Sign up for them!

u/mackenziemi · 1 pointr/Libertarian

Okay lets start off with the move to electric as being "carbon" neutral. Most electric engines get their power in one way or another from coal. Coal is the dirties worst kind fuel you can pretty much get. Yet in the green new deal all of the existing energy sources are banned except coal. (Especially nuclear which is one of the cleaner sources). So if its really about the "science" why are only keeping one of the chief offenders at the exclusion of better cheaper cleaner energy sources?

https://www.enovaenergygroup.com/which-types-of-energy-source-produces-the-most-pollution/




Next, light rail. The left loves light rail mostly because between AM Track and the unions they own the rail industry in the united states. They can do as they please and reward their supporters. Light rail can and does make sense in smaller countries like Japan or in the nations of Europe because you have smaller more densely populated areas. By extension it could make sense for the coasts of the united states. Where is doesn't make sense is in the middle of the country. Its too big and too lightly populated for the numbers to really work. I would direct you to Freakonomics if you want some further reading material.

https://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338/ref=sr_1_1?crid=RL6DWAUXJAKW&keywords=freakonomics&qid=1551233567&s=gateway&sprefix=freak%2Caps%2C186&sr=8-1

​

Lastly Air travel won out over rail a hundred years ago for valid reasons. For large heavy cargo and freight, ships and trains still make sense. Where it makes no sense is for people. People want to get where they are going as quickly and cheaply as they can. Thus the invisible hand did its thing and you have the modern rail and airline industries.


So here are a couple of questions. Why to be environmentally sound to we have do things more stupidly? Like regress from air travel back to land and sea travel. Why are pro environmentalist so obsessed with forcing others to their way of thinking? Seems to me that if they lived what they preached and we saw real benefits from those actions people would naturally get on board and then you wouldn't need to regulate anything. The people would regulate themselves. Why would we as a species want to spend 5 times the net value of all money and product of human existence on a program doesn't even promise to solve the problem to any sort of measurable effect?


Just some thoughts

u/Linearts · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

The Undercover Economist might be one of the most enlightening books I've ever read, and it's what got me interested in economics in the first place. It's got pretty good explanations for the advantages and disadvantages of markets, and talks about when they cause good outcomes or bad outcomes.

Freakonomics isn't really about capitalism vs socialism, but it is a fun book written by economists.

u/protagornast · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Lists of the most popular black names only tell part of the story. Chapter 6 of the first Freakonomics book spends a lot of time analyzing data from black baby names in California (I'm not sure if California still tracks baby name date by race, but they did for the period of time the authors were looking at). One thing they found was that there were more one-hit only names for black babies during this time period than for babies of any other race, meaning that black babies were more likely to have a name that was not shared by any other baby born in the same year. They also found several instances of the name Unique, along with a few alternate spellings such as Uneek, Yoonique, etc. Both findings suggest that uniqueness is valued by many black mothers, even though some names are still bound to be more popular than others.

u/disposable_pants · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

> Larry Summers is an economist.

Oh right -- it's not as if an economist has ever offered legitimate commentary on all sorts of social phenomena before.

When you become a tenured professor at any institution, then I'd believe you're qualified to determine what is "real research" and what isn't. Right now you're just some blowhard on the internet.

u/snarfu · 1 pointr/opiates

Your dealer's profit margin would depend entirely on his overhead and expenses. The book Freakonomics has a chapter on the profitability of street-level drug dealing.

u/i_am_jargon · 1 pointr/reddit.com

Somebody hasn't read Freakanomics. Here's the relevant section for you.

u/Pirsqed · 1 pointr/AskReddit

I know you already mentioned Huxley, but I have to first say Brave New World. Just because, man, nothing else could have really opened my eyes to a relative morality at such a young age. "Let's just purposefully grow people. Then let's have them embrace their sexuality at a really young age. Oh, and there are these other 'savages' that practice many of the old ways. We don't talk about them much. Oh, and all the old religion got mashed up when we put all the people together, so they sort of worship this Christ type mother earth type thing. It's cool. They're fine."

Then there's The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect (click for online free version published by the author.)

Where do I start with this book? First, I would say it's both sexually and violently graphic. That's not the point, though. The point is: What happens when we actually do have a god that can, and will, give us whatever we want? Whatever we want, that is, except death. Everyone is immortal and everyone can invent their own world to live in. What happens? Really really good stuff. A short book, but just blew my mind.

Finally, I'm finding it hard to decide between Classic Feynman: All the Adventures of a Curious Character, The Information, and Freakonomics. Each of these really expanded the way I think of things and how I look at the world around me. I'd recommend any one of them, it just depends on what you're interested in.

u/TheBB · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/Tesladoestheastro · 1 pointr/atheism

Saw a Tim Harford link and remembered this. Also helped me understand more about human rationality and morality.

The undercover economist

Freakonomics

u/kinygos · 1 pointr/todayilearned

This book Freakonomics by Steven D Levitt has a section on how much money drug dealers make (it's not as much as you think), and contains lots of other interesting discussions like it.

u/what-the-what-what · 1 pointr/IAmA

> Ummm.... maybe because of the large poor urban population that more commonly plays lottery games everyday?

Spoken like a true intelligent economist. See this.

u/carthum · 1 pointr/books

Some good nonfiction: A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.

Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace

The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson

Freakonomics by Steven Levitt

u/bob-leblaw · 1 pointr/AnythingGoesNews

Check out the book, "Freakonomics" by Levitt & Dubner. Fascinating chapter on it, and other things related. Great read.

u/Bulldogg658 · 1 pointr/news

Gangs do not pay that well at all, they are mostly pyramid schemes. "Why Drug Dealers Live With Their Mothers."

u/yes-i-am-a-wizzard · 1 pointr/gay

Actually, homicide rates are the lowest than they have ever been https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

compared to rates in 1996 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf

There are far too many factors which might influence the decline of firearm related deaths in the late 90's. If you've never read Freakonomics it actually looks at some of the factors which may have lead to the decrease in crime. Basically the theory is that in the wake of the legalization of abortion, people who would have later grown up to be criminals were never born. The book explains it much better than I can, but this is kinda getting into the weeds a bit. My argument is that even if the ban persisted beyond the 2004 expiration, you can't attribute any decrease in crime to the law's success because it is far too complex of an issue to be boiled down to a single factor.

I already gave an explanation for why I don't think these weapons should be further restricted. They account for a tiny fraction of firearm related deaths. If we assume that every death caused by a rifle in 2013 (which is one of the years included in one of the FBI report tables I linked to) were committed by a different person; then what you are suggesting means changing the law because of 0.0000009% of the population. To me, that seems like a huge waste of time, money, and effort that could be spent on way more important things like healthcare.

To be perfectly honest, yes, I think that recreational drugs should be legal, so long as it is done in a way that doesn't negatively impact others. Imagine a world where there are no longer drug dealers. If you want to do heroin, cocaine, or meth, all you would have to do is go down to a store, present ID, make your purchase, then you go home, do your drugs, and everybody can be happy. Prison population would decrease, no more petty street crime, no more adverse effects due to drugs being cut with (more) toxic chemicals. To my knowledge, no country has ever tried it.

There is no other platform that is as adaptable as the AR-15. That is its whole point of existence.

Again, my entire point is that banning or restricting a certain type of firearm will have no effect on the total number of crimes. As I have repeatedly pointed out, you don't have to have an AR-15 style rifle to kill a lot of people. In previous events, large numbers of people have died in single events from a shooter using nothing but two handguns. 50 people could have died from handguns just as easily. Would we be having the same conversation if that were the weapon of choice?

Here is why they shouldn't be banned

  • No appreciable amount of crime is committed with these weapons, overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with handguns

  • It would do nothing to stop the illegal trade of firearms between criminals

  • Would only impact people who desire to follow the law

  • They have legitimate sporting purpose



    Sports cars can be looked at the same way. Nobody needs to be able to drive 140mph. People drive them because they like the way the look. The same arguments you make for banning certain firearms can be used to ban sports cars. It would increase public safety, and the only reason people buy them is because they like them. Sports cars serve no legitimate purpose other than to drive fast. If people want to drive fast, they can just store them at race tracks. Driving a sports car increases your likelihood of being in a high speed crash.

    I was mistaken when I brought up the Jo Cox death. I had heard/read that the cause of death was due to a shooting, not stabbing. I guess the reports that the suspect had a gun got merged with the actual events. Still, whatever gun the suspect was arrested with would not have been legal to own in the UK, so my point still stands even though my premise was wrong. I was attempting to highlight that even in countries where firearms are heavily restricted, it is still possible for unstable people to gain access to them, not that she could have defended herself.

    As far as the effect of armed citizens has on crime, it is difficult to say. It is highly dependent on the situation. Based on the training I received as part of my role as an emergency responder, many active shooters are stopped when confronted/charged. In a place I used to live, an unarmed mall security guard stopped an active shooter when he yelled "stop".

    The majority of people who are licensed to carry a firearm (like me) have received some sort of training. Personally, I have done a great deal of training involving firearms, and how to use them defensively. Part of that training is knowing when and when not to intervene in a situation. The people who carry have to be able to assess the situation, and weigh the risk of intervening vs not intervening. Those decisions have to be made very quickly. I would really like it if there were more training available, similar to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g. Again, the appropriate action to take will be different based on the situation.

    Do I think that if everyone carried a gun, we would all be safer? No, not necessarily. I do think that if people who have the mental capacity, desire, and ability to do so safely were present and armed in certain situations, outcomes could have been different for many crimes.

    More guns would not have helped in Orlando. The event happened in a nightclub, where alcohol was served. Guns and alcohol do not mix.
u/dummyuploader · 1 pointr/indonesia

>If the religious camp is against prostitution because of morality consideration, the leftist camp was against it because they saw prostitutes as lazy.

and they had only been able to provide a piece of insight of this prostitution problem^(if we agree that prostitutions problem, to begin with). This reminds me of how this book: freakonomics provides insight to adressing society problem

the amazon link

u/manhowl · 0 pointsr/videos

Its not a crutch its the truth. We are too far deep in poverty to make a change. Its not a lie that an educated white person will have an edge over an educated black man in the working world. I saw a post on reddit a few months ago about a study that concluded that. So even if i educate myself that wont do shit because theres always somebody who will get picked over me because their skin is lighter. Im going to recommend a book for you called Freakconomics

u/lord_dumbello · 0 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Here's my suggestions:

  • Freakonomics is a fun introduction to economics. It has some caveats (most high-level economists disagree with the book) but I think it's a great way to get excited about economic concepts and see some of the things you can do with them.
  • There are a bunch of excellent topic-focused lighter-reading economics books such as: Wikinomics, The Wal-Mart Effect, and Predictably Irrational, to name a few.
  • I know you said "pop-sci" but if you're into mysteries at all then there's a fun series of two books written by a pair of economists called Murder at the Margin and Fatal Equilibrium. The books are murder mysteries in which the main character solves the mystery using economic principles. They are a little silly but an entertaining read.
  • If you're interested in something a little more hands on there are a number of free (low expectation) online introductory courses. The University of Illinois in particular is offering a completely free course in Principles of Microeconomics. It's fairly unorthodox and should be both fun and informative. I highly recommend it from personal experience.

    Hope that helps!
u/spartacus_1138 · 0 pointsr/politics

Freakonomics. So that he could learn more about how economics actually works in real life and not in ivory tower theories.

u/rationalities · 0 pointsr/AskSocialScience

So I’m not sure if asking questions to a current economics student will be the best way to find out if you’re interested in the subject. Especially if you’re not very familiar with the subject. Instead. I’ll give you some resources that might give you a better understanding of the subject.

This link from the American Economic Association gives you an overview of the subject. Click all around the website because there is a plethora of information. As well, here’s a link from the AEA about careers for those with an economics degree (both undergrad and grad).

Next, I would read Freakonomics and it’s sequel, Superfreakonomics. They are much closer to the “pop-Economics” than “academic economics,” but the books give a very good intro into the “non-standard” topics that still fall under the domain of economics. And it would be true that many current graduate students and young professors’ interest in the subject was peeked by those books (myself included).

After that, I would read maybe an intro textbook. My recommendations on this depends on how comfortable you are with calculus.

u/LocalAmazonBot · 0 pointsr/AnythingGoesNews

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Amazon Smile Link: http://smile.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338


|Country|Link|
|:-----------|:------------|
|UK|amazon.co.uk|
|Spain|amazon.es|
|France|amazon.fr|
|Germany|amazon.de|
|Japan|amazon.co.jp|
|Italy|amazon.it|
|China|amazon.cn|




This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.

u/mr_dude_guy · -1 pointsr/politics

I am sorry but you are wrong. Please leave this tread and read this.

http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338

u/BAMAToNE · -15 pointsr/funny

You guys can quote "racism" all you want, but you know these dumbass names exist.

Edit: Y'all should read Freakonomics sometime, specifically the chapter on names.

u/SyrioForel · -44 pointsr/pics

You'll be paying it off for some years after you graduate via your higher-than-average tax rate. The fact that the connection between "taxes" and "paying for services" seems so muddled and unclear is intentional. "Free" doesn't actually mean "free". It means "Pay for it via a yearly installment plan."

There is no such thing as free lunch.