[soempty]

Just receantly read this book over the night, and i want to ask why is it praised so much? It surely is entertaining, but from economical point of view it expresses very simple ideas and i didn't learn much from it (conclusion was brilliant though).

To be honest i find my as level economics textbook to be more interesting than this dull book, because it expresses more complex ideas on economics which fascinate me much more.

[FDR]

(Original post by soempty)
Just receantly read this book over the night, and i want to ask why is it praised so much? It surely is entertaining, but from economical point of view it expresses very simple ideas and i didn't learn much from it (conclusion was brilliant though).

To be honest i find my as level economics textbook to be more interesting than this dull book, because it expresses more complex ideas on economics which fascinate me much more.

I didn't like Freakonomics either, but I guess it's been praised because, as you say, it is entertaining, but also because it is easy to understand for people who aren't studying economics.

If you want a good read, anything by Paul Krugman is worth a read - 'the return of depression economics' is fantastic, and despite the fact it was written in 1999 (although he has released an updated version), it explains the 2008 crises perfectly, and in my opinion is more entertaining than freakonomics. Joseph Stiglitz is also good if you're into development economics.

[apolocreed]

I read it ages ago and realised that they were really using strung out examples I explain usually the same thing...I made a fairly good evaluation for a 14 year old but I completely forget now :/


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[MagicNMedicine]

I generally agree. Freakonomics is overrated. I would not recommend putting it on your personal statement as everybody else will, you may as well say you've read Harry Potter.

As FDR says, Krugman's books, The Accidental Theorist, The Return of Depression Economics are much better.

[cc2468]

I liked Freakonomics, but I don't think it should be called "Freakonomics". It's more a book on psychology and incentives, rather than economic theory. I think I'll put it on my personal statement, but I won't go into depth about it.

[susuthemusu]

people assume economics is. business so its a good starting point for those who havent done eco. otherwise its a crap book, i did like the book "nudge" very good read

[susuthemusu]

(Original post by cc2468)
I liked Freakonomics, but I don't think it should be called "Freakonomics". It's more a book on psychology and incentives, rather than economic theory. I think I'll put it on my personal statement, but I won't go into depth about it.

that is a large part of what economics is about, behavioural. economics And psychology are not the same thing.

[cc2468]

(Original post by susuthemusu)
that is a large part of what economics is about, behavioural. economics And psychology are not the same thing.

By economic theory, I meant the mathematical models, the traditional supply curves etc.

Behavioural economics is a rather new development, and usually is considered a separate branch in economics. I think there is a difference between behavioural economics and traditional economics.

[MagicNMedicine]

The book by Edmund Conway (Economics correspondent from Sky): 50 economics ideas you really need to know is better than Freakonomics as an intro book. It doesn't go into much detail but it at least tells you what economic concepts are, so its a good primer for seeing if economics is likely to be the type of thing that will interest you.

[cc2468]

I think Freakonomics is definitely worth reading. It's not the best Intro book to Economics, but it's brilliant in other regards.

[lucas13]

its more for the general audience and designed for people that havent done economics before.

[Future_Dr]

I watched the video as my GCSE Economics teacher put it on for us. I found it interesting, but didn't seem to relate it to economics. Don't know why, what was I missing?

[miser]

I liked it and it spurred a bit of an interest in economics for me which I followed up with online university lectures. I liked that it challenged a lot of general 'common sense' ideas about how things are related to each other, when the reality seems to be quite different.

[OddThings]

I enjoyed it,as from a non expert point of view in economics,it was entertaining.

[Summa Laude]

(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
The book by Edmund Conway (Economics correspondent from Sky): 50 economics ideas you really need to know is better than Freakonomics as an intro book. It doesn't go into much detail but it at least tells you what economic concepts are, so its a good primer for seeing if economics is likely to be the type of thing that will interest you.

Completely agree. Having never formally studied economics (not even at GCSE level) I've just about finished reading this book in preparation for my MSc Management this year. The 50 concepts are explained superficially but sufficiently. The book has certainly complemented my understanding of The Economist/FT articles and I can also understand a lot more of the economic/political discussions on TV. I'm also reading a book on the economics of modern China (titled 'Tigers head, snake tails' by Jonathan Fenby) and it has also helped my understanding of that.

As soon as I'm done with 50 economics ideas you really need to know I will start reading The Economist's 'Economics: Making Sense of the Modern Economy' by Saugato Datta, which is a slightly more advanced read and highly recommended from what I've gathered.

As for Freakonomics, steer clear of it if you are after a read that is mentally stimulating and will enhance your knowledge of economics. It is purely for entertainment and I personally found it a waste of time (although admittedly I proceeded to read its sequel Super Freakonomics).

All in all, 50 economics ideas you really need to know is great if you've never studied economics.

EDIT: In retrospect I wish I'd done a degree in Economics as opposed to Civil Engineering. Oh well.

[Silvake]

I remember attending a lecture last year on an open day for Oxford University and the tutor for E & M was telling us that they were extremely tired of applicants coming into interviews and talking about Freakonomics. Says it all really.

[sellerofdreams]

I read it when I was thirteen, and I really enjoyed it. It gave me an interest in economics and spurred me on to read other, more challenging books relating to economics.
It might be boring if you have studied economics before, but it's really interesting if this is your introduction to the subject.

[JuliusDS92]

I've almost finished it and I really don't get the fuss. What do sumo wrestlers and teachers have in common? They both cheat when the incentives are strong enough, and? I had the same feeling when reading about the supposed link between the KKK and estate agents (although that chapter was interesting inasmuch as it explained how estate agents do their business). There's some interesting stuff, sure, but not enough to write 200 pages on IMO.

[danny111]

(Original post by soempty)
Just receantly read this book over the night, and i want to ask why is it praised so much? It surely is entertaining, but from economical point of view it expresses very simple ideas and i didn't learn much from it (conclusion was brilliant though).

To be honest i find my as level economics textbook to be more interesting than this dull book, because it expresses more complex ideas on economics which fascinate me much more.

I see what you did there. Please troll elsewhere.