Subtitled “Why the Free Market Works and Half-Baked Theories Don’t,” this book released Monday by John R. Lott, Jr. had a different subtitle in the first catalog I saw it in (tonight): “Why the Free Market Works and Freaky Theories Don’t.”
This second (or, I think, first) version echoes not only what John Lott, the famous gun-control opponent, hopes will happen to the popularity and sales of his book, but may even hark back to a bit of slander against him committed in the pages of “Freakonomics,” the most popular book on the subject of the dismal science that I can recall within my adult life.
The slander concerns the statement in the book that other researchers “haven’t been able to replicate” Lott’s controversial research that suggested that gun deaths decline in states that have adopted policies of licensing ordinary citizens to carry guns. Lott had presented his findings in at least one book previous to Freakonomics, but this is his first since the publication of that book, which I haven’t read and don’t plan to. Lott’s book(s) have sold pretty well in their own right, but not like Freako.
Lott actually sued Steven Levitt for libel for this remark, because researchers seeking to falsify Lott’s conclusions have indeed replicated his findings, in the strict academic (economic) sense of that word. I seem to recall that the remark is absent from editions of Freakonomics subsequent to the first edition.
In any case, Lott’s new book (I haven’t read his earlier works because they were pretty much limited to gun control) looks to me like a must read, so for whoever cares, I promise to read (or listen to, as I often do) this book.
{ 9 comments }
I lean toward Lott’s side on guns, but I think it was very lame of him to sue Levitt. Libertarians have no business supporting the restrictions on free speech that are slander/libel laws.
Why can’t someone defend their reputation and credibility against libel and slander T.G.G.P.? I’d say people can have to right to speak/speech but shouldn’t be able to avoid ramifications of offending and hurting others.
Lott’s lawsuit against Freakonomics was thrown out, so I don’t think you can argue that he was libelled by that book.
TLWP, it violates the non-aggression axiom. The Freakonomics book is only words. But the libel case is maybe somewhat of a threat of violence (not sure on that one) but, more importantly, if it had succeeded then the Freakonomics author would have had to pay up, which is the initiation of the threat of force.
I had a look at the book last week, and the title isn’t quite right. It is more like a Chicago-style look at the economics of crime and certain public sector concerns. It might be a fine contribution but it is not what he title claims.
Lott’s suit was thrown out, and libertarians should applaud. However, Lott was correct and the statement in Freakonomics was incorrect, and most likely intentionally so.
I was going to get Freak o nomics till I heard theauthor on dennis pragers radio show. I figured there was no way it could be worth reading if he’d sit down with that maniac!
Freakonomics was a required textbook in my “Economics as a Social Science” class. My professor was enamored with the “creativity” it presented. She was also enamored with the movie “The Corporation,” required us to watch it, and when questioned about the lack of experts in the film held up Noam Chomsky as proof that film was not just propaganda, and praised Micheal Moore as an “asker of hard questions.” When I asked about why Milton Friedman’s remarks were not examined and suggested that maybe it was because he was against the implied suggestion of the film (i.e. that government intervention is the answer) she got very defensive…and made sure to announce that she was a firm believer in the “Invisible Hand” of the “free market,” just that sometimes markets fail and government is the only way to fix it. But I digress.
Freakonomics is an interesting book, if only because it shows exactly what is wrong with the study of economics. The arguments are presented in a sort of “markets are full of cut throats and other equally evil people looking to take advantage of you.” It is a specious argument at best and reveals the ideology of the authors. The first three chapters are fairly easy to choke down without getting too irritated, but when chapter four rolls around and you are choking down the author’s attempt to answer normative questions by positive means, you start to get bored very quickly. (I did, at least.)
I’ve read Freedomnomics, too, and I liked it enough to buy it (after reading half of it in my local Barnes and Noble, of course). It isn’t the best book on economics out there, but it is relatively good at explaining why the free market works and everything else doesn’t. I would agree, though, that it is more along the lines of the Chicago School than anything else. Lott actually attacks the Freakonomics-style of economics throughout the book, which gets kind of old, but it’s still interesting.
To be honest, I wasn’t planning on purchasing the book BECAUSE of the feud between Lott and Leavitt, which I found to be slightly juvenile, but the book was interesting enough to warrant shelling out the cash.
I recommend at least borrowing it from your local library. Or reading it in the Barnes and Noble cafe while sipping a very expensive drink…
has anyone ever heard of the book “the middle mind”? It’s not exactly a classic in fact it’s all over the place in a stream of consciousness sort of way. But it has a good premise which is that what used to be called cultural studies has kind of been lobotomized and oprah-fied into best sellers. perhaps freakonomics is harbinger of bad econ books to come. “the world is flat” has sold what like 18 billion copies?
Comments on this entry are closed.