I didn't realize that it's already been out for so long that libraries have it. Both the first book and this one seem to be fairly easy reads, but I think this one is a bit easier to read than the first one. I seem to also be blazing through it, and am now on the epilogue. I will refrain from commenting further until other people have read it...

Alright... I'm done reading the book... Will wait for others to finish...

I'll get on it asap!

I haven't even got the book yet. There are 41 holds at the library, and I can't find it cheaper than around $20-25 online, and it's a rip-off at Chapters. I'm going to try BMV this weekend.

I'm halfway done. It's a quick, easy read.

I told you guys I wouldn't subject you to anything too difficult. What did you think about the economics of prostitution? How did the supply-demand shift with respect to "french style" sex impact your life???

Just finished a few days ago. Will post some thoughts soon.

Ok, so after 4 libraries, I finally found a copy. So, I will be a bit behind as I will just be starting. So, bare with me for a couple of weeks.

Ok, so here are some of my thoughts... I was really not sure what your question with respect to what the "point" of the prostitution chapter is, but it was quite clear that it seemed to brush you the wrong way. I actually didn't really know how to reply to that question... What was the point of Hell's Angels? What is the point of writing or reading any book? ... And ultimately, what is the point of knowledge or life in general? Not sure if I can answer any of those questions.

I do agree that this book was a little bit more bases on anecdotes and less on quantitative facts and research than the last one. I think this is simply based on the success of the first book. In other words, I think that due to the somewhat controversial implications, he backed up everything with hard evidence in the first book to sort of "cover his ass". Whereas in this one, he had already a somewhat established name and reputation, so he went into more qualitative and subjective areas. That is why I actually liked the prostitution chapter the most: it was mostly based on hard numbers and stats rather than the opinions of Intelligence Ventures or Al Gore. I thought it was interesting to examine how the economics of this particular segment of the market work. I do wonder about that high class prostitute though and whether it really is so profitable... Perhaps I'm in the wrong business...

What was it that you didn't like about it Leo?

I will write a bit more later but I'm about to leave this wi-fi spot and not sure where I will fin ehe next one. They are a hard-sought commodity here in Indo...

Yeah... I also read the introduction before reading the book, and you are right. Essentially, the guy is looking at a few problems through the eyes of an economist. That's why they paired up in the first place. The economist is not really able to put his thoughts on paper in a presentable format, while the guy writing the book is able to write, but not really able to come up with the ideas.

The thing that really made me kind of cringe was the two chapters dealing with the environment. The idea of dumping a whole bunch of floating giant tubes into the ocean that is already quite polluted (just take a walk here on the beach in Kuta, Bali and you will not be able to make a step in the water without stepping on some sort of hard or soft plastic...). The same goes for the sulfur pumping into the atmosphere. It just seems conceptually wrong. However, I also believe that the amount of carbon emissions made compared to other "greenhouse" gasses is quite small, and while we may need to look at alternative energy sources as a way for the future, it simply won't be enough in the present. But who knows in the end... as he points out, the weather system of the planet is so complex that you would need millions on computers doing the calculations, and even then the best thing you could probably come up with is a distribution of the means that probably resemble a bell curve with the "most likely" scenario as the mean.

The chapter on altruism is something that I believed in my whole life. I genuinely believe that we are all selfish, and that there is no such thing as giving or doing something without receiving any kind of gain from it. Even if you get a toasty feeling of having done something "right" by donating to some charity at Christmas time, it's still a simple equation of you paying for the feeling of having done something good. In other words, it's a simple purchase transaction. We all pay through commitments in relationships, helping others, etc. in order to get something in return (friendships, business opportunities, interesting conversations, sexual favours, etc.), or simply to get the feeling of "being a good samaritan" or whatever that makes us feel elevated, or clears our conscience for a bit. Perhaps it's a bit cynical, but I have yet to be convinced otherwise...

Traveling through Asia, the book makes me thing about it a little differently. How do you get the locals to clean up the environment and not throw all their crap into the ocean, or to stop dynamite fishing, long-line fishing, or dragnet fishing, poaching, etc. In the end, what incentive do they have to do these things. Are they able to understand that tourism would probably increase and would they believe that they have a future gain in that rather than being able to go underwater to rip out some giant clams and sell them for an immediate profit? And who would do the educating? The government? Interest groups? I guess in the end, the message is the same... people will only change behaviour to maximize their gains, or to minimize their punishment for violating these things. Perhaps it would be better with the Big Brother watching us all and telling us what to do so that we can maximize the utility from resources we consume...

That's what I meant with the whole 1st book v. 2nd book comparison. In the first one he is a lot more analytical (if I remember correctly since it's been a while...), and he "teases" out these kind of factors to identify the independent variables. That's actually how he got the recognition in the first place - I.e. His ability to identify cheating teachers in the "no child left behind" standardized testing implemented in the states. I would have liked him to do the same in thus book, but was somewhat disappointed to find that he hasn't done that for the most part and simply stated the relationship between the variables without going into the effort of examining their independence and/or correlation.

Interestingly enough, when I was going up the Mekong in vietnam about 1 month prior to having read the book, our guide told us that this region is doing much better now due to television. Apparently, in order to decrease the amount of kids families were having, the Vietnamese government handed out TV's to the locals in that region. Vietnam has a 2-child policy, but you can purchase the right from the government to have additional ones. The people were having too many kids which meant that a) they had to pay more for the right to do so, and b) they were having more kids than they coul afford. Both had an impact on the poverty level in the area. Since the introduction of TV's, the amount of children per family has significantly dropped, and consequently the % living in poverty as well. Our guide had a slightly different view from the book though. The people that witnessed this change attribute it not to any women empowerment changes, but rather to the fact that the husbands can't be bothered to have sex when there is so much excellent Vietnamese programming to be watched...

Just finished today. I will comment this weekend.

Overall, I’m not entirely sure what I think about the book. There were some parts that I found really interesting (in particular, Chapter Five, and scattered bits and pieces throughout the book).

I too was left wondering what the point of the book was. But, as was already pointed out, it’s all about incentives. I thought the following statement sums up the whole point of the book quite well: When people aren’t compelled to pay the full costs of their actions, they have little incentive to change their behaviour. I found the book to be all about incentives and behaviours, and how the two interact and influence one another.

I too didn’t care for the chapter on prostitution. I mean, in an ideal world, where a woman can be a prostitute (by her own volition and not out of desperation) and run no risk of violence or disease and get rich doing it, then yeah, maybe it’s an attractive “profession,” but only if sex is meaningless to that woman. Unfortunately, this is not the case for most women. Most have standards (i.e. sleeping with men for money is kind of…well…slutty). I would imagine that the majority of women wouldn’t become this kind of prostitute, no matter how much they could make because of the morality of it. As far as I can remember, the authors didn’t delve into that as a reason for why more women aren’t doing it. Economic incentive isn’t always the driving force.

The chapter on altruism was kind of interesting. But I always found myself thinking: sometimes people are good and sometimes they are bad. And that was proven by the fact that Kitty Genovese’s murderer was caught because of a neighbour’s intervention. And I agree Juraj that true altruism is hard to come by. But, I think there are truly inherently altruistic acts (i.e. split second decision to help someone in distress, without thinking about your incentives to help). But I’m not concerned with the motivation. If someone does something good for somebody else, it shouldn’t matter whether economic or moral incentives were the driving factors.

I’m also skeptical of experiments like dictator. In the experiment, people gave 20% of their money. But I think this would be a much lower percentage if there was more money at stake. It’s not very realistic or indicative of real-life decisions.

It really is disturbing when you look at the incentives that drive people’s behaviour: doctor’s extending the life of a patient to make their track record on patient life look more attractive; children visiting their parents with more frequency if there is a sizeable inheritance at stake. It’s sickening, actually (I wonder if these two particular examples are more prevalent in the U.S.).

Some of the statistics I found to be almost useless (i.e. you’re statistically more likely to die from drunk walking than drunk driving, or how econometric analysis shows car seat aren’t better than seat belts at saving lives. So what, I shouldn’t feel as badly about driving drunk because I am far less likely to get in an accident? Or I shouldn’t use a car seat for my kids because of a statistical analysis? It really is interesting to see the data though, and how car seats aren’t actually safer, and all the reasons why we think they are. But, I’m not about to be that guy that refuses to put my kids in a car seat because of a statistical analysis.

Chapter Five was my favourite. The solutions seem out of this world (the ocean cooler tubes and shooting sulpher dioxide into the sky to imitate a volcanic explosion). Is it really a case of lack of incentive to truly solve the problem? I liked the analysis of Al Gore’s approach. Everything focuses on the individual and individual choice and how an individual’s decisions can help the environment (i.e. recycling, driving a Prius, not using plastic water bottles, taking the subway instead of driving, etc.). I understand that every little bit counts, but what about these macro solutions that can actually be measurable and create large-scale change? I just feel like the environmental movement focuses too much on encouraging micro lifestyle changes that ease an individual’s guilt more than they facilitate real change. And it doesn’t focus on the right things. There’s too much emphasis on transportation, and not enough on eating (as I’m sure you already knew about cows and methane and the whole meat industry, and just how much of a negative externality it is (I loved the example of a Prius owner driving to the super market to buy a steak). Like religion, people pick and choose what they want to satisfy whatever needs they have (in this case, environmental guilt).

So, I take back what I said. Overall, I liked the book. It was a quick, easy read, with a lot of issues that made me think and go beyond the statistics.

Yeah, the author makes a great point amidst the allegations that it's playing with Mother Nature. He points out that if we hadn't played with Mother Nature by using ammonium nitrate to raise crop yields, humans probably wouldn't exist. And what about stopping polio, or what about all the levees used to control flooding in New Orleans, Holland, etc.? Isn't that playing with Mother Nature?

I mean, they agree with the Global Warming science (I think the only people that would disagree would be Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck), but they make the point that it's alarmist for all the wrong reasons. A very small % of CO2 emissions are from the things we think they are (i.e. a very small % is from transportation). We need CO2, and earth has natural patterns of increase and decrease of it. Levels have been higher in past periods. However, the problem isn't that CO2 levels are increasing. The problem is the speed at which levels are increasing, which is exponentially faster than normal). And like they point out: what's more effective, a $50 million awareness campaign by Al Gore, or these macro projects that could actually make serious change?

I had to be on guard while reading this book, fearing that I might end up being that guy at a party who demands that the car keys be given back to some intoxicated mad man trying to leave a dinner party. "You know, walking drunk is much more dangerous. He's better off if he drives. Here, read this."

One thing that bothered me was how all the sources are buried in the back of the book. As a reader, if I want to see where some seemingly magical numbers come from, I have to figure out what chapter I'm on, where to go to check the source (they mention the appendix at the beginning of the book), and then sift through the notes for the given chapter until I see something familiar. Not happening. Just use footnotes and be done with it; or at the very least end notes for each chapter.

Overall, though, I liked this book: it was an easy read that kept me engaged, cursing at times and going "Hmm...Interesting" at others. I'm with Leo and Alex concerning chapter 5: by far my favourite chapter. It reminded me of that George Carlin bit I sent out awhile back--classic! "Save the planet!? We can't even take care of ourselves--and we're supposed to save the f@#&*/~ planet!?"

As for the chapter on prostitution, I think the authors were presenting it as a job like any other job--not something desirable, just a job that can make a little or a lot of money, depending on how you go about it. Consider a clerk at a 24/7 gas station: most people, I daresay, do not want this job, but they do it to get by. There is a threat of violence (imagine five sketchy dudes entering the shop at 3am) and it doesn't pay well, much like with certain prostitutes.

Okay, time to go to work.

I personally like the use of appendices in books. I haven't had the opportunity to get into some of the back-up for the content of the book due to being literally in the middle of nowhere, but I feel like footnotes are too essay-like. I think the book was edited in such a way so as to make it more "readable". It is up to everyone to decide what exactly they want to question and/or investigate further.

One of the reason this guy gets criticized so much is because of the fact that he doesn't really offer any kind of implications or "so what does this mean" conclusions. He is, after all, an Economist, and is simply commenting on the data that he has. What made him get recognized, as I already mentioned, is his ability to sift through data to identify the dependent and independent variables, which is probably the most difficult part of statistics. Is "a" as a result of "b", or is "b" as a result of "a", or are both "a" and "b" caused by "c". Remember the good ol' days of independent variables being independent only if probability of "a" or "b" is equal to the probability of "a" plus the probability of "b" happening? (actually... that may be the "mutually exclusive" criteria... maybe it's probability of "a" and "b" is equal to probability of "a" OR "b" times the probability of "b" or something like that... not sure anymore... Finite class was a looooooong time ago ).

I think the book is doing what it was designed to do: causing people to think. I think that's really the only point of it. I agree that I will still install a baby-seat if ever I have a baby to take care of, but I also do think that we are humans, and that as such, we often make counter-intuitive decisions based on our "feelings", which, it could be argued, are the result of the incentives/rewards we are faced with. I actually enjoy it every time I read something that just ruffles my feathers. This is the way that I know that I may be expanding my boundaries and challenging my set ways ('evolving'... if you will...), as opposed to simply doing things or looking at things the way I have always done before.

A part of me would really like to think that no matter what kind of problem humanity is faced with, we will find a solution when we have to, even if a solution for a particular problem seems non-existent, or even impossible at the present time. Only way, I think... is to really examine the problems from all possible angles. Right now, however, I would be completely content with one of those mosquito-zapping lasers. I would pay a lot of money for one of those right now!

I found this read average. It was short and easy to read, but it did not compelled me to do anything different. Sure it made me think of certain things in a different way, but what, I don't remember. I do remember thinking...Ah! that's interesting.

For books of this nature, I like it when authors try to propose solutions to current issues rather than only expose them.

If u r interested in global economics, try reading Manford Max Neef.