Reddit reviews FREAKONOMICS: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything ( Penguin Culture )

Bugger. You stole my suggestion. OP, read this book. It is great.

On a simliar bent but obviously inferior, I'd recommend The Dictator's Handbook which covers more of a political science approach, and will make you reconsider 'stupid' political actions and Freakonomics which covers economics and unintended consequences.

However, the recommendation I'm going to make, in line with my flair, is The Lion and the Unicorn, a dual biography of the greatest political rivalry in British politics, between William Gladstone (the intellectual champion of classical liberalism) and Benjimin Disraeli (the cynical strategist who created the modern conservative party and massively expanded the franchise.

On the face of it, a book about 19th century British prime ministers might not be what you immediately thought of, but it has everything. Parties being created, and destroyed. Idealism against strategy, moral outrage against cynicism, Imperialism and foreign interventions against liberal internationalism, where a candidate elected on a ticket of anti-imperialism inadvertantly triggered the largest colonial expansion in world history. It covers how British politics was created, and the strategies and ideologies that were perfect then remain in place to this day, with Neoliberalism, Globalisation and 'One Nation' effectively a bastardisation of Gladstone's economic policies, Free Trade vs Imperial Preference debates, and the original One Nation Conservatism championed by Disraeli allying the industrious elite with the upper working class populace against the liberal elite (remind you of anything...)

> Come da titolo, se siete esperti di economia ditemi un po' dove posso trovare una trattazione divulgativa della materia o un qualche corso online.

Dunque: IEA e' abbastanza tecnico e te lo sconsiglio, ma Undercover Economist e' divertente, e puo' valer la pena di leggerlo anche solo per intrattenimento; sulla stessa riga c'e' anche Freakonomics che pero' a me e' piaciuto molto meno.

Se poi ti viene la voglia, io inizierei con un po' di microeconomia, ci sono ottimi testi universitari che pero' costano un botto; pero' in genere si trovano usati a poco. Quello di Krugmann e' molto 'easy/pop' e con poca matematica (l'ho solo sbirciato, pero'); io ne avevo uno di Perloff e non mi sembrava male (ma parlo di un bel po' di anni fa; probabilmente c'e' qualcosa di piu' aggiornato).


Per i corsi online: una mia conoscenza ha seguito un corso su Coursera di un tipo indiano (non mi ricordo), ma era orripilante: un mio amico lo seguiva, mi ha chiesto di dargli una mano, ho provato a guardare uno dei video e non ho mai visto spiegazioni cosi' vaghe e confuse. Evitalo come la peste..

Credo che qualcosa di migliore sia su Khan Academy; vale la pena di guardare. (EDIT: ho guardato ed e' un po' stringato, ti servira' un supplemento. Krugmann, Perloff o qualunque altra cosa sia disponibile usata a prezzo ragionevole; evita le traduzioni italiane, pero').

Dopo aver guardato un po' di microeconomia, potrai decidere su cosa buttarti.


Se ti interessa la finanza e ti piacciono i romanzi, leggi Liar's poker, che mi e' sembrato spettacolare. E se a questo punto ti prende l'idea di capire cosa sono mai questi misteriosi bond e derivati, c'e' un ottimo e chiarissimo (ma un po' pesante) libro di finanza di Ivo Welch disponibile online; richiede un po' di matematica ma e' chiarissimo.

Ah, visto che ora va di moda la 'behavioral economy', puoi anche leggere qualunque cosa di Dan Ariely (tipo Predictably Irrational), ed e' sempre divertentissimo (e ha fatto pure lui un corso su Coursera con cui mi sono diverito un sacco). Ma se ti interessano poi gli aspetti seri, leggi lo spettacolare Thinking fast and slow di Kahneman (premio nobel, a ragione).

There was an interesting section in Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, that I read recently. It showed that only successful candidates for political positions had massive amounts of financial support, but their success wasn't linked directly to the financial support; it all links back to correlation != causation.

I don't know, but perhaps they are more in the mold of Steven Levitt (the guy who cowrote Freakanomics as he is probably most popularly known) who just uses the tools taught in economics to understand how to sift through large datasets (something I hope the FDA has a lot of expertise in).

As a secondary question, what is it you think the contractors do? That's one of the side effects of pushing for a "smaller" government when measured in terms of employees. It means the government can't perform its functions itself and has to hire other people to work on its behalf (and no, from many of the contractors I've met [and yes, I often act as one of them] they are not more efficient or encumbered by any less bureaucracy than the government employees).

Firstly. just to say, take note lurkers and searchers of what is being said here. I work in the sector and it is completely evident that dallyopcs knows exactly what he is talking about. They have made far more sense than anyone else on this subreddit.

We are relatively anonymous here on reddit but I feel like I may know you one way or another IRL.

But in reply:

>Sounds like you did well man, congrats, sacrificing now usually pays off in the future! I was 24 myself when I'd managed to save up a 10% deposit.

There was definitely an element of luck, whilst I was at University I secured a deal with a supermarket for a site that paid me £15,000 finders fee that contributed majorly towards my deposit for a home. Some people say this was luck, but to be honest I worked very hard to get this deal. Combine this with scrimping and saving every penny I earned I was then able to buy my own home very early. I completely forebode any temptation of expenditure for years to finally afford a house deposit (including ignoring the peer pressure and temptation to frivolously on materialistic items like; smartphones, designer clothes or holidays). There are many who complain they cannot afford a home at my age, yet simultaneously tell people like me that I "never lived" by avoiding the latter expenses. I guess it is all down to preference and what is more important.

> Another thing we should take in to account is, why would people actually want to buy a property now? A lot of the market is very over valued, especially down south.

This is definitely a local issue. "DAAARN SAFF" has always seemed expensive and overvalued to me. But people from "DEEEEAAARN SUFF" are not restricted to buy in that area. I am based in Manchester and even though it is a rapidly growing market and in some places properties are very much overvalued; there are still many untouched property "Oasis'" that offer many opportunities.

> We live in a time where property in all the nicest areas are owned by the older generation and that wealth doesn't seem to be moving. Millenials have not had any opportunity to buy anything cheap yet like previous generations had.

I can understand many of my fellow Millennials share this view, thinking "them boomers" are buying up all the best property in the area. Leaving us all in the proverbial. But we shouldn't blame them at all...

1. Buying the cheapest property for investment in an area is only what you would do in the same position.
   
2. Supplement to point 1, buying investment properties is the only thing these "boomer" generation have been taught. They were never taught or given any other methods; i.e. forex, shares, ISA's, etc...
   
3. Many property opportunities were offered, under-handily marketed and eventually sold to the "baby boomers" generation as a good investment opportunity. Only after time did these investments pay off (as does anything in property). If boomers had the resources, knowledge and transparency that we have now the majority would have never have invested.
   
4. Confidence in a market drives growth, point 3 above is an example of what happened in the real world with the "boomers" generation. Moreover, why our "baby boomer" population in the 20th century as the large percentile of our well-educated population (for the time), could be conned into buying property as an investment with nothing more than a light touch of verbal diarrhoea from a white collared, gold tie, braces wearing con man. The reason why many didn't lose money was because enough people fell for the con that property market confidence drove exponential growth.
   
5. Us millennial's could never have this sort of "hivemind" between us that would create a growth in a market through sheer confidence... because:
   
6. Firstly we are peppered with negative media reports regarding any economic market making us all a bunch of miserable, cynical and cautious bores.
   
   
7. In our information age, we have access to information that we had never had before like recent sold prices. This simple information we expect nowadays so we can make a decision. However back in the day it was not so accessible, Estate Agents being the sole traders of this information and the reason they became so influential in the property market. I just remember this era, but for those who don't; I suggest reading the book Freakonomics there is an excellently written piece alongside other enjoyable articles, that compares Estate Agents "value" being in their knowledge and why this is like the Professional Sumo Wrestling League.
   
8. It's easy in hindsight to say that it was actually mega risky for boomers to buy property in this way and really they only succeeded because everyone else did the same... but their ignorance was the reason property prices grew. Us millennial's who have all the necessary info and ability to question someones "bullshit" are arguably suffering from being too informed. I.e. Being more aware of the market conditions warns us off buying, leading to less confidence and slower market growth.
   
   
   
9. Having traditionally secret information like local sold prices made easily accessible to all the public this make the general public more astute and informed as to the true values of properties in the area. This is the reason why I believe it would be unlikely we would ever see a crash in values as we saw in 2007-2010, why? well even in busy markets people are unlikely to offer way over the asking price of a property as they are more aware as to the true value, comparing it to others that have sold.
   
   
   So you see the "Baby Boomer" generations growth in property wealth was a big gamble, the risks of they were probably unaware of. The younger generation actually have the hindrance of knowledge, rather than the bliss of ignorance.
   
   This is why nowadays professional investors like myself tend to ignore whether a location has potential "capital growth"... nobody has a crystal ball... instead we concentrate on the rental values/income/yields/rent ROI all of which are must easier to determine. A good rental income from a secure and minimal hassle tenant is the priority... any capital growth in the property value is a bonus. At the end of the day the end value means little to you as an investor if you are producing a consistent income out of the asset, therefore no intention to sell.
   
   That being said there are still many that look for properties in areas where they expect capital growth. They may decide to buy to refurb and sell on a property. This is usually an option preferred by the boomers over the investment/income method above.
   
   These opportunities can make an investor a quick £10k-15k profit, rarely more nowadays, especially if you are buying a property via Auction/Open Market channels. That being said there are some areas where opportunities like this could profit far more...which leads us on to:
   
   > Millenials have not had any opportunity to buy anything cheap yet like previous generations had.
   
   and
   
   > I think our time will come, but all this quantitive easing central banks are doing is delaying it, because its holding off the natural cycle of recessions.
   
   There is definitely not as many opportunities also the market plus legislation at the time was far more forgiving to any mistakes previous generations made. That being said the opportunities that are out there where you have little competition and potential for big gains so long you can identify the location early enough.
   
   
   This is usually an area that has undergone major regeneration, rejuvenation or just a sudden surge in popularity...
   
   Strangely boomers are the last to find these houses as an area that goes through any of the latter is usually considered by a boomer as a "s##tehole location they would never buy in"... Their inability to shake historic prejudices of an area is their downfall and an opportunity for the next generation to take advantage of (maybe creating another confidence led house price growth).
   
   For example: In my area of Manchester there is a Large Ex-Local Authority Estate called "Langley" (close to Middleton if anyone knows it). Now the estate was notorious during the 90's,00's and early 10's for crime and anti-social behaviour.
   
   Langley was that bad that when I worked in the area (circa 2010-2012) we were not allowed to book appointments after 5pm.
   
   In 2013 though, the council partnered with a developer began to regen the area by CPO'ing ex-council properties and replacing them with brand new homes.
   
   This method worked wonders, slowly displacing problem families and replacing them with young professionals. However people of a certain age still have this stigma associated with Langley, even though the regen scheme has resulted in £50k homes increasing to £125k homes in less than 10 years.

Yes, but 'evidence' is not always what it seems at first sight. That's what differentiates lazy thinking from science.

EDIT:

These are all peer-reviewed articles with rigorous statistical (Cochrane) analyses.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.23033/full

http://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2407-12-385

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1315315

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/5/1048.full
Even seems to go into the effects you run into

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/5/1169.full
Context

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/cessation-fact-sheet
Just a FAQ/fact sheet, but still nice as an overview/bullet pointer. Lists a nice bunch of compounds for which I as a (bio)chemist/toxicologist with a PCC would regard as carcinogenic.

EDIT2:

I'm throwing the same stick back at you. Here is the same website you refer to, but now selecting for deaths due to drowning: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/drownings/by-country/

"WTF? Drowning is more prevalent in [Mozambique/Somalia/(South )Sudan/Zimbabwe/Kenya/Malawi/Central Africa << pick your dry country here]] than in [[Germany/Denmark/Netherlands/United Kingdom/Italy/Iceland/Norway/Belgium/Malta << pick your wet country here]]!"

I live in the Netherlands. If I want to drown in outside fresh water, I'm hardly ever more than 40 meters away from a solid option, whereas in many of the countries with high prevalences it doesn't even rain twice a year.

"How could that be?" Hint: probably swimming lessons as a detracting factor.

Statistics are only more or less transparent to people who have been trained and have extensive experience. We do a lot in epidemiology at my institution, and it's not as easy as you make it seem.

EDIT3: For all interested (I keep adding stuff, sorry, I'll stop after this one, promised), read this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0141019018

or one the other books by this duo:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_8?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=superfreakonomics&sprefix=superfre%2Cstripbooks%2C155

Really, it nicely illustrates the pitfalls of intuition and first-glance gut feeling statistics. Several thumbs up!

Read chapter 6 in the original Freakonomics