3 ms·

Freakonomics is fun and clever. A more subtle and standard economics book is probably more correct. But then it would be boring and I wouldn't have read it.

by Gunax 3y ago

smcin 3y ago
It's fun and clever, but is it true?!?! [or if you think it doesn't matter whether it's true and replicable, it's great salon chatter material, but that wouldn't be science, it would be something above Malcolm Gladwell-grade material.] It's more from the "interesting-if-true" school of clickbait. It popularized the "amazing counterintuitive results!" school of airport books along with Ariely, Kahneman. (Conversely, it did have a few benefits: teaching the layman about experiment design, correlation-does-not-imply-causation, instrumental variables.) (The most plausible-sounding counterintuitive which Freakonomics radio program (on NPR) reported was the claim that participating in the FIFA World Cup tended to reduce overall internal corruption in a country, because if the sports ministry embezzled the money or didn't hire good staff and use it effectively (or at the most basic level, pay players' wages, facilities, travel, jerseys), the country's national team would tend to get beaten embarrassingly by their peers, and the outraged populace would demand reform, not just in sports but other sectors. However, better check if that was replicable or not; it should be, because international tournaments, World Cup player strikes or scandals plus Transparency.org rankings give us "natural experiments" every 2-4 years.)
- smcin 3y ago
  I found the episode, but although it cited some sources, can't see an actual publication with that finding, but other sources plus some plausible conjecture by people who are fairly informed: Freakonomics Radio Episode #338 "How to Catch World Cup Fever" Jun 13, 2018 https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-catch-world-cup-fever/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-catch-world-cup-feve... [5m00s-onwards]" the World Cup isn’t just a gargantuan sporting event; it’s a microcosm of human foibles and (yep) economic theory brought to life." Click on 'Read Full transcript'. In the audio, jump to 11m29s, where they talk to Stefan Szymanski, professor of economics at the University of Michigan and co-author of Soccernomics.
  - smcin 3y ago
    In the podcast: 14m28s: comparing historical GDP data and [national-team] soccer goals Also book: Stefan Szymanski, "Football economics and policy" (2010) https://www.google.com/books/edition/Football_Economics_and_Policy/AlWCDAAAQBAJ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Football_Economics_and_...

Freakonomics is fun and clever. A more subtle and standard economics book is probably more correct. But then it would be boring and I wouldn't have read it.

by Gunax 3y ago

Freakonomics is fun and clever. A more subtle and standard economics book is probably more correct. But then it would be boring and I wouldn't have read it.

smcin 3y ago

It's fun and clever, but is it true?!?! [or if you think it doesn't matter whether it's true and replicable, it's great salon chatter material, but that wouldn't be science, it would be something above Malcolm Gladwell-grade material.] It's more from the "interesting-if-true" school of clickbait. It popularized the "amazing counterintuitive results!" school of airport books along with Ariely, Kahneman. (Conversely, it did have a few benefits: teaching the layman about experiment design, correlation-does-not-imply-causation, instrumental variables.) (The most plausible-sounding counterintuitive which Freakonomics radio program (on NPR) reported was the claim that participating in the FIFA World Cup tended to reduce overall internal corruption in a country, because if the sports ministry embezzled the money or didn't hire good staff and use it effectively (or at the most basic level, pay players' wages, facilities, travel, jerseys), the country's national team would tend to get beaten embarrassingly by their peers, and the outraged populace would demand reform, not just in sports but other sectors. However, better check if that was replicable or not; it should be, because international tournaments, World Cup player strikes or scandals plus Transparency.org rankings give us "natural experiments" every 2-4 years.)

smcin 3y ago
I found the episode, but although it cited some sources, can't see an actual publication with that finding, but other sources plus some plausible conjecture by people who are fairly informed: Freakonomics Radio Episode #338 "How to Catch World Cup Fever" Jun 13, 2018 https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-catch-world-cup-fever/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-catch-world-cup-feve... [5m00s-onwards]" the World Cup isn’t just a gargantuan sporting event; it’s a microcosm of human foibles and (yep) economic theory brought to life." Click on 'Read Full transcript'. In the audio, jump to 11m29s, where they talk to Stefan Szymanski, professor of economics at the University of Michigan and co-author of Soccernomics.
- smcin 3y ago
  In the podcast: 14m28s: comparing historical GDP data and [national-team] soccer goals Also book: Stefan Szymanski, "Football economics and policy" (2010) https://www.google.com/books/edition/Football_Economics_and_Policy/AlWCDAAAQBAJ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Football_Economics_and_...