My Organizations and Markets post on “puzzles” versus “problems,” in philosophy and economics, is generating some interesting discussion. Mainstream economists, I suggest, are increasingly avoiding the “big questions,” focusing instead on finding and solving cute, clever, but ultimately ephemeral, puzzles. Call it the “Freakonomics Approach.” (Or, borrowing the title of Bob Murphy’s review of Levitt and Dubner’s Freakonomics, the “more-fun-than-truth approach.”)
Does the popularity of books like Freakonomics and The Undercover Economist signal a trend within economics? If so, what is it — micro over macro, empirical over theoretical, applied over pure, silly over serious? Does this present an opportunity for Austrian economists, either to do the same thing, but better, or to offer an entirely different approach?
{ 7 comments }
I think it shows a general interest in knowing why people don’t feel as “well off” as they used to.
As atrocious as “Freakonomics” is in its content, its method is to make economic subjects something other than dry mathematical lectures by dry, mathematical “ivy covered professors” and bespeckled octagenarians who can wreak havoc on WallStreet with just the sounds from their bowels.
So why “Freakonomics” and not “How Capitalism Saved America”? Because the latter doesn’t sound as fun. In fact, it sounds deplorably serious (even though the reading of it was anything but dull). Had the titles been reversed, I honestly think sales of the latter would have been much higher.
That’s it. Marketing.
Take the Austrian thought form, package it as a bunch of silly parables, and give it a funny name. Maybe, “The Dummies Guide to Free Market Economics: or ‘There’s no farm for a thousand miles, so why does my grocery store always have fresh milk?’”.
Please forgive the double post. For that matter, how could “What has the government done to our money?” not be a best seller? It would seem the perfect vector and a great title.
Curt,
This : “…how could “What has the government done to our money?” not be a best seller?”
–is a good Q. Though, who would ‘sell’ it?
“Okrah”? Simon & Schuster? “The View”? Katie Couric? Andrea Mitchell??
Curt wrote;
“Take the Austrian thought form, package it as a bunch of silly parables, and give it a funny name. Maybe, “The Dummies Guide to Free Market Economics: or ‘There’s no farm for a thousand miles, so why does my grocery store always have fresh milk?’”.
The second one would be a good subtitle.
I think what made “Freakonomics” sell, besides the slick packaging and the hype is that it seemed divorced from an ideology, and presented some surprising (if controversial) conclusions. No doubt an Austrian writer could do similar – any takers?
Vince,
Are you making an offer? If so, of what, exactly?
“Freakonomics”, w/o the “hype”, would have been in the 1.99 bin @ B&N within 3 weeks of its hitting the loading docks…
It was/is a classic example of “Buzz” marketing.
And, if you don’t think the “insight” re: Abortion= “lower crime rate” was at the root of its “success”, I’d ask you to: “learn me some.”
M.E.,
I have nothing to offer but a review for my small-yet-unenthusiastic readership, and some good wishes.
I agree with your last comment – I wasn’t going to dignify it by mentioning it. “Unscientific” is the kindest thing I could ever say about it, although “racist” and “eugenic” comes to mind.
My point was there are at least as many surprising conclusions to be drawn using Austrian economics as those in “Freakonomics”. And, contrary to the ‘puzzles’ meme, they could be both micro and macro in nature.
Vince,
I hear ya.
I think this: “If sweatshops in China are bad, then surely those who want to coerce every aspect of my life in this country are evil incarnate. It is ironic and humorous that evil should be used as justification to perpetrate evil against me. We are losing our freedoms because the rank and file citizens of our nations love tyranny more than liberty.
Unfortunately, the management of Walmart won’t take the good advice to defend themselves either because fundamentally they have bought into the totalitarian nightmare themselves. All sides view it as a contest to wield the powers of government to gain the advantage. No one wants to live and let live. Libertarian wisdom falls on deaf ears even for those it would rescue.”
Posted by: David Spellman at June 29, 2006 02:11 PM
Aptly points to the hurdle(s) faced by the potential “mainstreaming” of an Austrian Econ-take, as being discussed.
This site rips out on the one individual, Jon Stewart, in the MSM, that could begin a “YouTube”-style buzz for such a book. Hello?: “bonus” from a min. wage hike?? Irony? Anyone?
Comments on this entry are closed.