The Death of Freakonomics (Draft)
Added 2025-04-10 14:13:51 +0000 UTCHey guys, hope you like it - LMK in particular how you feel about the intro (not the first minute, obvs that's lit, I mean the part before the first proper section as we rejigged it a lot).
Comments
Just FYI final version done, thanks for your feedback all!
Unlearning Economics
2025-04-19 09:36:17 +0000 UTCI'm subscribed to emails from the top economics journals (AER, JEP, JEL, JPE, Econometrica, QJE, plus a bunch of behavioural ones); the more academic subreddits are good too; you can try bluesky to follow academics if you've dropped twitter like me; and some discords are good like AE, UE, or Political Economy.
Unlearning Economics
2025-04-14 15:07:54 +0000 UTCPerfect, I'll add an addendum
Unlearning Economics
2025-04-14 15:05:08 +0000 UTCYeah we had the VHS rewind before but it felt a bit flat and length, I'll see what I can do.
Unlearning Economics
2025-04-14 15:05:00 +0000 UTCThanks, this is all really really valuable
Unlearning Economics
2025-04-14 15:04:39 +0000 UTCI can't change it but I can add an edit
Unlearning Economics
2025-04-14 15:04:26 +0000 UTC-The amount of influence that is peddled in DC stays the same wether you play up or down the exact number of dollars. 😂 It's not exactly the flex they think it is to make the argument that the wealthy are buying access for relatively cheap. -Also no smoke on your jokes in the video, but the hardest I laughed was when they said "healthcare is like any other market". I nearly dropped a dumbbell on my face it caught me so off gaurd.
Thor Harter
2025-04-13 22:10:22 +0000 UTCLevitt did a podcast episode recently with Tim Harford about freakonomics. Might be relevant? https://open.spotify.com/episode/090Cf7NTZ3ZEJfA2UpaPHW?si=q6JWhzmxS7KacBfOBmaRPA
raymond horia
2025-04-12 15:30:36 +0000 UTCFor the first section, I think it would help to have a stronger demarcation between the three different version of the story. I found it difficult to tell when one version of the story ended and the next one started. Perhaps you could put some TV static in between them, or do a VHS rewind effect. Also, I'm not sure I realised when I first read the script that the "small chance of catastrophic climate change" was defined using a difference of *10 degrees Celsius*. I'm not a climatologist, but I'm pretty sure the real bad changes happen well before a temperature change of 10 degrees Celsius.
Stefan Westerlund
2025-04-12 14:43:20 +0000 UTCSlightly random question (a bit unrelated to the video), but I'm quite interested in how you stay up to date with economic research? The Bayesian meta-analysis on UCTs and the public transport studies are both super interesting and relatively recent (at least in terms of publication timelines). I know a lot of academics use twitter but I'm keen too stay away from that hellscape, so are there other ways you keep up to date with research without paying for a journal subscription (or scouring google scholar)? Really enjoy the essay, excellent public communication :) (and soon too enjoy a copy of your book!)
Michael Morgan-Giles
2025-04-12 13:27:06 +0000 UTCYou use Oklahoma and 1995 as examples in the context of crime, but it’s not about the Oklahoma City bombing… feels like a different time/place pair would be better.
Uri Strauss
2025-04-11 23:08:36 +0000 UTCHere is way more feedback than you probably want. Overall loved it though and don't think any significant changes are needed. - This is the most effective takedown of Freakonomics I’ve seen. I think it works because you’re generous to the authors, you engage them on the substance, and you don’t assume too much about author motives. - On the substantive critiques, I think it hits because you don’t just leave it at “Other experts disagree,” which is easily dismissed. Your technical and teaching chops really shine here and it accomplishes what If Books Could Kill etc. cannot. - On not assuming too much, taking their own claimed motivations (being contrarians and provocateurs) at face value and outlining why it’s destructive really hits home. Throughout, you generally let them tie their own noose. - Intro is good - Great decision not to get into money and elections. No real comments, I just think this topic would be bait for most breadtubers. The literature on this is pretty fraught and I think it reflects well on you that you didn’t take it. - I would probably lean towards cutting some/all of the KKK bit. I don’t think you’re wrong per se, I just found too much to quibble with and the section on names is very strong on its own. My feeling is that too much needs to be inferred about author motives in this part. In the names section, their ignorance is on full display. They make claims like “Maybe it’s not racism, and maybe it’s just that they associate negative stereotypes with black names.” This is the literal definition of racism, and this betrays their juvenile understanding of the topic. - I think the strongest criticism against their section on the Klan is simply choosing them as a subject in the first place. You don’t need to read between the lines to know that this was done for “politically incorrect” shock value, and that it only played well because their audience is primarily rich white folks that don’t have to suffer through racism in any tangible ways. - When we start getting into the details of the section though, it becomes a bit easier to quibble with. Example: the point about the KKK starting as a benign fraternity and then morphing into a hate group in a short period. Maybe this is informed by my background researching political violence, but to me this doesn’t betray any leniency towards the group. It seems like a pretty interesting descriptive fact that raises worthwhile questions about the ubiquity of hate and the utility of clandestine organizations in facilitating hate either intentionally or through malicious actors co-opting those organizations (IDK which I don’t know klan history). So my main concern is if it’s true. If it’s not, they deserve to be skewered. If it is, hell I’d probably include that fact if I was writing about the Klan. Maybe it all reads more sympathetically to the klan in the text of the book though. - Maybe too technical of a point, and you mention it at a high level, but the issue with the Fryer and Levitt study on names is that essentially all controls (education, income, etc.) are post-treatment to race. It’s the same point you made about estimating gender-based discrimination while controlling for occupation in another video. IDK, I just find causal inference on race/gender from observational studies to be almost uniformly uncredible for this reason. Fitting the types of models they do is either a poor understanding of statistics, race/gender dynamics, or both. (It’s both) - On daycare, I don’t have data just experience working with my kids at multiple daycares. Current policies everywhere I’ve seen is to charge $1-3 for every minute that a parent is late. This seems to work as I am both usually one of or the last person to pick up their kid in the evening, and I’m never late. Pure anecdata, maybe ignore this point. Maybe others with kids also have insight here. - Proposed title for section after discussing fees: “How is this economics?”
Oct
2025-04-11 14:40:35 +0000 UTCI'd say the issue for me is their idea that incentives are basically magic and solve everything, then their first example is one where incentives doesn't work. It may be worth thinking about how this is framed though so ty. Interested to know what you think of the return to that example too!
Unlearning Economics
2025-04-11 06:47:43 +0000 UTCMinor pronunciation error: NAACP is typically “n double-a c p”
Danny Spitzberg
2025-04-10 23:28:00 +0000 UTCOkay, so you won't reshoot it and it's a minor issue, but: I was slightly irritated by you saying "Why We're Getting Poorer is coming out soon", when it is already out ^^ Another minor gripe: Ever since Minute Physics made that "Teleprompter paradox" video, I can't unsee you reading the script. It's distracting to different degrees in the different shots, with the worst by far being the one in front of the world map. That generally looks like you are really close to the camera. Perhaps consider that in future videos. I hope it's clear that my only comments are this petty is a good thing ^^
Axel Wagner
2025-04-10 19:04:04 +0000 UTCI like the intro for the most part although it felt a little rushed: I'm very familiar with them so I knew most of the information and I'm already invested but I'm not sure it would be a good hook otherwise, as it doesn't take its time to really paint that portrait. Even if I like the image it feels a bit spotty. I'm also only 10min in so I'll come back to edit but, unless I misunderstood your point, I don't see why there's anything wrong about saying incentives are important to consider before giving an example of a bad incentive. Being useful and important doesn't mean it can't be designed incorrectly? From my memory of this book (which granted, is quite hazy) the ideas could be very pop economist but the writing itself was solid and entertaining. So this specific remark kind of comes across as petty to me. Feel free to disregard though it's my personal feelings on the matter. Others might disagree.
Wyskii
2025-04-10 15:32:38 +0000 UTCIn the sumo wrestling section, you show one that is supposed to say "8 wins, 6 losses", but is missing the numbers
Axel Wagner
2025-04-10 15:23:57 +0000 UTC
