Levitt's Freakonomics

In the book Freakonomics, written by economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubne, the authors go through different parts of modern life to show how economics describes why people act a certain way as well as the way specific outcomes occur. They look into different aspects of society and view them with different perspectives. With the use of specific data and the fundamentals of economics, the very obscure comparisons and the different chapters in the book show correlation between economics and human nature. The main point of this book is to explain a few fundamental ideas through the answers of strange questions and how they play a major role in society.

The intended audience of Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner’s Freakonomics is made up of middle class Americans and comprised of adults and teenagers with a basic education and a broad knowledge of a wide range of subjects. Since Levitt and Dubner reference a large variety of topics, it is imperative for the audience to also be familiar with a wide variety of subjects or at the very least to be aware of popular culture and government. For example, when Levitt and Dubner reference a Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, where a young woman named Norma McCorvey was “...the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit seeking to legalize abortion” they establish their audience as one that would be educated enough to know the fundamentals of some of the most important events in American history (Levitt and Dubner 5). By referencing the Roe v. Wade case, a court case which is generally considered to be common knowledge for Americans, Levitt and Dubner reveal that their audience must be comprised of

​Freakonomics is a book that explores the many possibilities of why some things are the way they are. Principles of everyday life are examined and explained while Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner search for logic in statistical economics. This book answers the questions: how can things affect what people do, why are things the way they are, and why experts routinely make up statistics. This book highlights the commonalities between schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers as well as the Ku Klux Klan and real-estate agents, the life of drug dealers, criminals, and the art of parenting.

The author Steven Levitt studied economics at Harvard University and MIT. He is primarily known for his work in the field of crime. The title Freakonomics means a study of economics based on the principles of incentives. The title is related to the book since he emphasizes how incentives drive and affect people’s actions. Although this book does not have a single theme, the main focus of the book is a new way of interpreting the world using economic tools. He explores incentives, information asymmetry, conventional wisdom, crime and abortion, and parenting throughout the six chapters of the book.

In chapter 2 of Freakonomics the main argument is that the absence of information can be used for personal gain. The main example used to display this tactic is when the KKK is compared to real estate agents. Although the crafty practice of real estate agents is in no way similar to the horrors of the KKK, they have a distinct similarity when it comes to the hoarding of information. The majority of the chapter focuses on the history of the KKK and Stetson Kennedy’s effort to stop it through the infiltration and exposure via radio of the Klan. Since the Klan was dependant on their violent—despite not being extremely violent—reputation, the disclosure of the information they had withheld from the public rendered them powerless. The narrators

Diane Ravitch is a historian of education at New York University. She makes a very compelling, but extremely one-sided argument that educational reforms such as “No Child Left Behind” are causing students to have lesser opportunities in schools. Her argument is directed towards school boards, parents, and lawmakers who have the ability to change school and state policies on education. She wants those people to believe that the current school system is not effective in giving students a quality education and preparing them for life. Diane Ravitch’s argument brings up a question for readers: Is it beneficial for students when schools cut funding to non-tested subjects? According to Ravitch, most of the schools in the country, except for the ones in the most affluent communities base their

The author is very affective with his argument, he uses logos and rhetorical questions the most to make the audience form their own opinions, but also listen to his. The main point in this book, Freakonomics, written by Steven Levitt, is to show that economics can explain many phenomenons. Levitt uses logos and rhetorical devices the most to display this argument. The audience is made to question if “It might be worthwhile to step back and ask a rudimentary question; what is a gun?” (Levitt 118). The audience asked to think about what the consequences of a gun can be. Levitt also uses data so show that these moments can be discomforting and dangerous. The most discomforting example that Levitt provided was that “The most famous gun-control

“An incentive is a bullet, a key: an often tiny object with astonishing power to change a situation” (Levitt & Dubner 16). Freakonomics is a book written in 2005 by award winning economist Steven Levitt and former New York Times journalist Stephen Dubner while they both resided in different states. The use of simple diction makes it so a larger audience can be reached; readers vary from everyday people to students to economists. In order to better explain economics, Levitt and Dubner appeal to their audience by forgoing economic jargon and using simpler terms to ensure that the readers understand and relate to what is being explained throughout the passages. The authors also appeal to the readers through their credible background and logically by using statistics, researches, facts and parallelism.

Chapter three of Freakonomics by Steven Levitt lays out an argument against the population’s capacity to hastily believe conventional wisdom. Commencing the chapter with anecdotes about faulty statistics and facts provided by so called “experts,” Levitt sews a seed of suspicion in the reader’s mind. Citing anyone from homelessness experts, to women's rights activists, to police departments, Levitt walks the reader through erroneous proclamations by individuals who drive the common knowledge of everyday people. After introducing each fabricated fact, Levitt not only invalidates each one respectively, but also goes on to explain why each expert provided such bogus information. To summarize Levitt’s commentary, each expert holds different motivations

In Freakonomics, incentive emphasizes Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s unification of disparate chapters and American society. Economic incentives drive people like teachers and criminals to make certain decisions. “...high-stakes testing has so radically changed the incentives for teachers…” (Levitt, and Dubner 23). School teachers’ incentive is to cheat because they do not want be fired or passed up for promotion because of low test scores. Levitt discovers that the different ranks in gangs have opposite incentives. “A foot soldier’s incentive was to make a name for himself; J. T.’s incentive was, in effect, to keep the foot soldiers from doing so” (Levitt, and Dubner 105-106). Foot soldiers start gang wars in the hopes of becoming noticed

Freakonomics is basically a book that explains its own version of the economic history. Dating all the way back to the 1800s with some stated facts explaining what incentives are and what type of incentives there are and what they're used for. Basically there’s a way to motivate someone and set them on a clearer path and bettering themselves in the future. One of the best motivations would be money because well money can get you anything in the world. Clothes, food, and car, Etc. They are a great way to motivate and give people that mind set to work for their money and not just lay there and wait for it on a silver platter. I feel like that people who work against people who never worked. They know more about the struggle than anything. Which is why they actually care when they get money and they spend it wise. Obviously the rich wouldn’t care to get or not because they already have enough to fall back on.

Freakonomics is a humorous and intriguing book about taking off the top layer of a situation and understanding what is happening underneath. Through everyday examples Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner take perspectives that are unheard of in any other writing while simultaneously comparing the most unique and uncommon ideas to each other. As they study everyday life, readers see insight to the ways in which the world really functions and runs. As they study the world the authors continue to ask questions, thus continuing to challenge the reader to seek for a deeper answer. Through these highly untypical questions, Levitt and Dubner are able to display that the root of economics itself is incentives.

Conventional wisdom is often wrong. Conventional wisdom can be described as the ideas or beliefs that are accepted by most people that go unquestioned. A prime example of conventional wisdom is the belief that the earth is flat. In chapter three of Freakonomics, Steven Levitt discusses many ways that conventional wisdom is wrong. He asks the question, "Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?" He explains the conventional wisdom that most drug dealers are wealthy. People believe that one of the most profitable jobs in America is drug dealing, particularly crack dealing. Levitt examines this conventional wisdom and throughout chapter three explains why this isn’t true. The authors explored the research of Sudhir Venkatesh, a scholar who once lived amongst a gang of drug dealers while researching the crack culture in Chicago. Based off of Levitt’s analysis of the financial records of a Chicago gang, the Black Gangster Disciple Nation, he proved that most drug dealers were not wealthy at all. In fact, the majority of the dealers earned an average of three dollars an hour,

Venkatesh was, “born in India, raised in the suburbs of upstate New York and southern California. (89)” Venkatesh also had a degree in sociology. “He was interested in understanding how young people form their identities. (90)” This curiosity ultimately led him down the road to uncovering “Why drug dealers live with their mom.” He ended up creating a survey that led him to be able to infiltrate a crack gang unintentionally. He learned many things from living with these people and the lives of most drug dealers. Towards the end of his stay with them he was able to get ahold of the drug sale notebooks and finding out just how much drug dealers make. In the crack gang there is a hierarchy. With foot soldiers at the bottom making less than $3.30 an hour or an average salary of less than four thousand a year, the next level officers made $7 an hour or about eight thousand a year, The gang leaders made about one hundred thousand a year, and the heads of the operations made about five hundred thousand a year. The reason drug dealers still live with their mom is because most dealers don’t start up the head of the organization but there is a chance you could work up to that level and make a lot of money. This would still probably be unknown to us if someone had not asked a question and found out why most drug dealers live with their parents. It took a few people asking the right questions in order to discover why most drug dealers are living in poverty. Drug dealers living poorly is odd and unexpected but not as unexpected as why crime rate dropped drastically in

For some students, even though they can get high scores in exam, but that’s all they can do. They just memorize the solution and don’t try to understand and absorb the real knowledge behind the exam, for these kinds of students we can’t say that their teachers do well. Comparing with this, some students have really penetrating understanding to the knowledge, their know how to use them even though it can’t reflect on their exam scores sometimes, but their teachers still deserve higher paid. There is no doubt that we can’t tolerate keeping low-performing teachers in classrooms because it hurts everyone, but the method used to evaluate teacher performance should be sophisticated enough to consider all factors that can affect a child’s success in classroom before they can be used to as a standard to punish or award teachers. Chicago strike also evokes a debate toward salary problem. Chicago teachers have the highest average salary of any city at $76,000 a year before benefits, compared with the median household income in Chicago is $46,000 (BBC News: para 4). So many people couldn’t understand that teachers rejected a 16 percent salary increase when most occupations are not getting and raises and many people are under unemployment. There are two reasons that CTU still raise salary debate even though teachers already get enough paid. Firstly, CTU considered the law aspect. According to Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, it is illegal for teachers to strike on all