Friday, January 18, 2013

The time has come!

I am so glad to announce that today is the day that I finally post the long awaited Freakonomics essay. I am sorry for all the delays that ensued on the way to creating this essay. I give thanks to Kristi and her help with the editing and sticking through all of the aggravation that I put her through while the essay was in progress. This is my first real essay so I would love feedback from anyone that is willing to give any. I have come a long way since Public school's essay assignments as now I know where I was going wrong and for once I got to write about something that I actually enjoyed. Without further delay I give you my Freakonomics essay. I hope that you all enjoy


Freakonomics
What is Freakonomics? Freakonomics is a form of economics studied by a few of the many economists. The books that I am going to be reviewing are based around this form of economics This may not make sense in the beginning but will progress to a reasonable statement. This intro will begin to make more sense as you read the essay. I will lead you into the world that these two books will present before you.

The authors behind the books are Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. These two authors started out as the unlikely combo of journalist and rouge economist. The two of them together decided to write the first book Freakonomics. Freakonomics was frowned upon with a claim that there is no main theme and even worse criticism was given when they proposed that the name would be Freakonomics. After Freakonomics sold 4 million copies world wide they couldn't help but publish a second book with similar qualities and themes like the first. The book posits many improbabilities that most people wouldn't consider during their everyday lives. Dubner and Levitt on the other hand decided to delve even deeper into these areas.

One of the things that Steven and Stephen delve into are improbable comparisons. The two kinds of people that you thought you could never compare are suddenly very similar. The first chapter of Freakonomics is about how teachers and sumo wrestlers are alike. I was baffled that these two could be compared at all, but the two brave authors did it and I managed to understand it. Teachers and sumo wrestlers both are willing to cheat to appear better and get greater benefits. Money is the incentive. A Sumo wrestler might cheat to increase his rank and get better pay; the teacher will do the same thing to be seen as a better teacher and be paid more for better results from the students.

The sumo wrestlers get their pay quite like a pyramid scheme. Even though the average sumo wrestler holds a place filled with respect if you are at the bottom of the pyramid you have so little money you would most likely live in a horse stable. While at the top of the pyramid a sumo wrestler would live like a king. Of course where there is incentive people will cheat. Sumo wrestlers would throw matches so that two people could advance. The person that threw the fight would then request that the other wrestler threw the match next time they met. This way they move up the pyramid and gain more money to lead a better life.

The teachers have a harder time cheating. The teachers try to find ways that will stump the standardized test system. They will do simple things like post answers on the board or more discreetly filling in the answers after the proficiency test. They usually use the discreet method of cheating because if one kid tells an adult they got the answers from their teachers, the teachers can be removed from the school permanently. The incentive is recognition and in some cases an increase in salary. Most of the time salary increases come from tenure, but in some cases they can get an increase in money by better standardizedtest results because they are teaching “better”.

Not all of Freakonomics is comparing people to each other. Levitt and Dubner could also easily compare people to inanimate objects. Another chapter is why a terrorist should buy life insurance. Terrorists are people that can cause chaos all over a country through acts of violence. How do we catch this menace to society? The answer was found by Ian Horsely who worked at a bank and found some data that helped with terrorists immensely. When looking at the data most terrorists don't have life insurance and other red flags like not using a credit card or withdrawing large quantities of money all at once. Ian Horsely devised a system to pick out terrorists in our society. The computer program wasn't perfect but it worked well and most terrorists wouldn't have been picked out if Ian had not picked out all of the red flags.

The chapters I found most interesting are written about a man known as Sudhir Venkatesh. Venkatesh studies in some of the worst part of Chicago, where he observes the inner workings of a crack selling gang. He learned that the inner system of the crack gang worked much like a pyramid scheme where the top people earn almost all of the money. The lower ranking people in the gang earn little to no money at all and struggle to get to the top of the pyramid. They usually never make it. Using a book that was being used to record all of the data Venkatesh brought the data to a rogue economist whose name was Steven Levitt. Together Venkatesh and Levitt figured out the inner workings of the crack gang and exposed it all to the world. Venkatesh then went on to work on a much more touchy subject, prostitution. Most people wouldn't ever be proud of participating in such work. Venkatesh was working on the daily life of a prostitute and sent former prostitutes to follow around the current ones to ask questions about their job. Both studies led to the conclusion that both crack dealing and prostitution led to extreme troubles for the people in this line of work. For the gang there was drive by shootings on the streets. For the prostitutes there was the risk that they might get ripped off and could get raped. The risks are so great for the jobs that they almost aren't worth the effort though as long as there is still demand there will still be the dirty jobs that most don't want.

Now that I have the basics down of the book I think that it is about time to get a bit deeper, including how Freakonomics addresses some of the more relevant problems. One of those relevant problems is global warming. We hear about global warming but there is so much information about it that its hard to discern which facts we should listen to. An interesting fact about our environment is that our world that we live in now used to be a lot warmer. The fact that they state in the book is that we might be doing something right with the global warming but we are just doing it too fast. I thought that it would be worth mentioning this specific fact and that we can also slow things down in a fairly simple way. One of these simple solutions is to release some small amounts smog into the atmosphere. This simple solution will cost so little that it would be less money than is spent on the United States elections every 4 years.

One of my favorite chapters other then the ones about Sudhir Venkatesh is another one of the person to person paragraphs. This chapter was about how a real estate agent is like the KKK. If you don't know who the KKK is they are also known as the Ku Klux Klan and were known for their hate for the people of color and their supporters. During the time that the Klan was a group they were completely secretive. Most people knew nothing about the Ku Klux Klan, but what does this have to do with a real estate agent? The real estate agents job is to sell your house but how much incentive do they have to actually give you the best price they continue to promise you. The fact is that the average real estate agent makes a miniscule profit of 2.5% of the actual selling price of your house. So when you think about it the money won't change much if you get the price to raise another $500. Instead of holding out for the highest bidder they instead encourage you to take the first offer arguing that there won't be a better offer later. The overall similarity is the fact that they both gain from keeping secrets from the people. One keeps secrets for money and one keeps secrets to remain in power. In many books money and power are inseparable.

A name is a word that is assigned to a person and forevermore they are addressed by this word. A long asked question is how important is a name. Names can be important but not as important as some of us are willing to think. For example the book mentions there are two kids, the first kid is named winner while for some reason the second kid is named Loser. Loser ends up becoming extremely successful eventually becoming a very good cop who is loved by many. Winner's greatest achievement is his rap sheet of the many crimes that he committed. This proves part of my argument but there is still more. It is also proven that people with a traditional black name are less likely to get a job then a person with a traditional white name. Not only does this prove that there is still plenty of segregation but this also shows that proper names do help in a person's future.
From the 1970's to the 1990's there was a large crime boom but around the year 2000 there was a sudden crime drop. When it was thought that criminal activity would go up the crime rate exponentially dropped. Many economists proposed several explanations for this sudden drop including better gun control and the police crack down on crime. While all of these explanations could help explain a large proportion of the drop there was much that they were missing. The proposed explanations for the crime drop only equaled a little better than 50% in Levitt's opinion. I thought this was quite spectacular but Levitt proposed 50% was abortion. It makes sense. The kids that would have become criminals from dealing with the bad neighborhoods, bad families, and bad friends were not even born in the first place because they had been aborted.

I read an article that may have proved something wrong in Freakonomics. This work was on altruism. The altruism experiments would show that many college students that were below the age of 25 were not very altruistic. The first set of experiments consisted of student A being given $20 who was able to decide to give any amount of money. This test usually ended with them giving about $6. Another experiment that was done consisted of two people that had $20 and they could take money off of each other as well as give money. The second experiment had the exact opposite effect where student A would take all of the $20 from Student B and keep it all to themselves. The article I told you about was how a human brain would not be fully developed until they were 25 years old. It shows that these experiments in Freakonomics were not accurate. When these same kids turn 25 years old they might think completely different due to brain development.

In conclusion Freakonomics is an extremely fascinating book set that can take you to places that you wouldn't think of during your average day. From how sumo wrestlers compare to teachers and how terrorists would be safer with life insurance. All of the many subjects I have discussed and more can be found within the 2 outstanding books. Each chapter different from the last in some way or another. All I can say right now is that I can not truly give you the full experience that these book have to offer so I recommend to find them and read them yourself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No comments:

Post a Comment