Thursday, December 01, 2005

Revisiting Freakonomics

The source of Bill Bennett's foot in mouth moment is resurfacing in the news and the blogosphere. Freakonomics, the controversial book by U. Chicago Economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner created an uproar by asserting that the legalization of abortion was the primary driver behind the reduction in crime in the U.S. over the past decade or so. A working paper produced at the Fed in Boston is now challenging Levitt's findings. Warning! the following links are centered around debating the assumptions of applied econometrics, in plain english, BORING! Nonetheless, to revisit an interesting debate:

Freakonomics Blog (Levitt's Blog)

A Wall Street Journal Arcticle (Naturally a bit presumptive)

Steven Sailer: the Freakanomics Stalker


Ilya said...

I don't quite follow. If, as you say, there was an "uproar" (by whom?) over the finding of a significant correlation between abortion and crime rates, and this link has been called into question (as are most causal claims pertaining to social facts), what's your point? So what? Freakonomics is not all that it is advertised to be? Okay. Since when did people put much stock in social science findings anyway?

xtrachromosomeconservative said...

He of the Zinger post and other self indulgent narcissistic cyber farts asks: What's the point? Very rich indeed.

Anonymous said...

Hey, the zinger post had a point, notably, to define a zinger, demonstrate how they are identified, and to suggest that it is a good word to use.