Comments on: Review of The Undercover Economist

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:41:34 +0000

I find this sentence in Landsburg perplexing: “For example, [Harford] says that sellers offer discounts when customers are very price-sensitive. Actually, they offer discounts when some customers are more price-sensitive than others. If all customers were equally price-sensitive, there would be no reason to favor some over others with a lower price.” In fact, Harford is careful to explain that only a few customers have to display price sensitivity for these phenomena to emerge. I think Landsburg’s being unfair here. (On the Ostrom example, possibly less so–to be frank, I skipped most of the Nepal example. Dull.)

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:38:56 +0000

I would say, first, that Easterly and Harford aren’t writing for the same market: Harford is essentially doing econ as pop sci, and Easterly is writing policy-relevant stuff. I haven’t read “Hidden Order,” so I can’t compare. I haven’t read “The Armchair Economist,” either–but I started to, and put it down. I don’t like Landsburg’s style.

By: Zach Wendling

Zach Wendling — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:55:18 +0000

Paul, how would you rate Steven Landsburg’s review of TUE? Specifically, his veiled judgment that one would do just as well if not better to read his “The Armchair Economist,” David Friedman’s “Hidden Order,” and William Easterly’s “The Elusive Quest for Growth”?
Or perhaps you’d have other suggestions for the dilettante economist?