With Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner revealed the good, bad, ugly and super freaky of the world around us.
The freakquel is here. Back with more than pop-culture trivia, Inforum's next 21st Century Visionary Award recipients are ready to revolutionize our understanding of causality in an incredibly interconnected world.
Bio
Stephen Dubner
Stephen J. Dubner is an award-winning author and journalist who lives in New York City. He is the co-author, with Steven D. Levitt, of Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. He is also the author of Turbulent Souls: A Catholic Son's Return to His Jewish Family (1998), Confessions of a Hero-Worshiper (2003), and a children's book, The Boy With Two Belly Buttons (2007).
Freakonomics, published in April 2005, instantly became an international best-seller, with more than 1.5 million copies sold in the U.S. alone. It won the inaugural Quill Award for best business book; was short-listed for the inaugural Financial Times/Goldman Sachs Business Book Award; received a Visionary Award from the National Council on Economic Education; is a BookSense Book of the Year; and was named a Notable Book of 2005 by the New York Times.
Steve Levitt
Steve Levitt is the William B. Ogden Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, where he directs the Becker Center on Chicago Price Theory.
Levitt received his BA from Harvard University in 1989 and his PhD from MIT in 1994. He has taught at Chicago since 1997.
In 2004, Levitt was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal, awarded to the most influential economist under the age of 40. In 2006, he was named one of Time magazine's "100 People Who Shape Our World."
Levitt co-authored Freakonomics, which spent over 2 years on the New York Times Best Seller list and has sold more than 3 million copies worldwide. SuperFreakonomics, available this October, includes brand new research on topics from terrorism to prostitution to global warming.
Levitt is also the co-author of the popular New York Times Freakonomics Blog.
Alan Murray
Alan Murray is deputy managing editor and executive editor, online, for The Wall Street Journal. He has editorial responsibility for the Journal's web sites, including WSJ.com and MarketWatch and the Journal’s books, conferences and television operations.
Prior to his current position, Mr. Murray was assistant managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, and author of the paper's "Business" column, which runs every Wednesday.
Previously, he served as CNBC’s Washington, D.C., bureau chief and was co-host of “Capital Report with Alan Murray and Gloria Borger." While working at CNBC, he also wrote the Journal's weekly "Political Capital" column. Prior to that, he spent a decade as the Washington bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Murray joined The Wall Street Journal in 1983, as a reporter covering economic policy. He was named Washington deputy bureau chief in January 1992 and became bureau chief in September 1993. During his tenure as bureau chief, the Washington bureau won three Pulitzer Prizes, as well as many other awards.
Mr. Murray is the author of three best-selling books: “Revolt in the Boardroom, The New Rules of Power in Corporate America,” published by HarperCollins in 2007; “The Wealth of Choices: How the New Economy Puts Power in Your Hands and Money in Your Pocket,” published by Random House in 1991; and “Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform,” co-authored with Jeffrey Birnbaum and published by Random House in 1987. “Gucci Gulch” received the American Political Science Association’s Carey McWilliams Award in 1988. Mr. Murray also garnered two Overseas Press Club awards for his writings on Asia, as well as a Gerald Loeb award and a John Hancock award for his coverage of the Federal Reserve.
@surtr: are you a doctor? It seems you are particularly offended by the studies and let your anger blind you.
That the research isn't as complete as you would like does not imply that it is flawed. Levitt and Daubner also did not do this research themselves. The disparity doesn't need to be accounted for, if the results would be the same and the possible explanations don't affect the solution.
And of course they polish the topics in terms of word choice. Their intentions were to make this readable by the average American.
@Arnez-Rojas: They do touch on the image of economics as it is affected by the recession. Maybe you should pay closer attention to the first 7 minutes and to question 13.
Not every economist is fit to work on macro-economic questions. Levitt is not a macroeconomist. He (and especially not Daubner) did not have anything to do with the political nor independent private decisions that led to the recession. Ergo, please quit your blind crusade against anything that is associated with the word "economics" by posting ignorant comments a quema ropa on the internet.
Climate audit Link „» < http://climateaudit.org/ >
OK, not everyone loves to crunch numbers like I do. And not everyone can understand the ¡¥tricks¡¦ of including or excluding data that helps or hurts the global warming argument BUT everyone who professes to have an opinion or cares about the topic should be familiar with what has happened.
To intentionally mislead through inclusion or omission is the very essence of FRAUD. So ask your self if data was removed or added does that affect your opinion? Does the claim gee we did not even check to see if the data we took out and the proxy data we included helped or hurt, tended to support or refute the claim? If the shoe were on the other foot would you claim something is rotten in Denmark or smells fishy? Be honest
Now, ask your favorite the sky is falling Global Warming model to substitute the excluded data and remove the added proxy data. What happens? If the model is so sensitive to these insertions or deletions then maybe they should have 1) at minimum been disclosed 2) discussed and 3) be available for critics and supporters to review and debate.
As for me 8/10 of one degree in 200 years is not a sky is falling change.
No need to fear!
Read about the Eemian 130,000 - 114,000 before present
Maybe the Holocene climatic optimum 9,000 - 5,000 Before Present
and let us not forget the medieval warm period about 1,000 years ago!
If you think you were hoaxed or hoodwinked by CO2 fear-mongers!
Forget about it! Move on. That's right move on--
Temperatures and sea levels have been higher and have been lower.
It has happened before and it will happen again.
By the way when was the sea level and temperature perfect?
What year, what decade? what century?
Remember Ben Franklin told us that a person convinced against their will was as if not convinced at all so==== MOVE ON
Lesson learned about Hoax and fear-mongers!
Unless you attribute the Eemian, Holocene, Medieval warm period, and the period from 1940 to 1970 when CO2 went up and temperatures dropped etcetera etcetera to a vast right wing conspiracy to test your belief and faith in Al and the AGW model of the universe!
This is an absolutely nonsense, this people is in the game of “ok, now let’s kick the Docs”. The problem is not in the doctors not washing the hands but in the other 50 people that got in the room not doing it, beginning from the 8th grader that touch every single button in the elevator to the lady that brought the food in to that room, or what you though the food makes itself or is sterile….
Yet there is larger issues to resolved, the lab coats used and reused day after day, the stethoscopes that are moved from one patient to the other one, the flowers that were brought by grandma and of course grandma herself. How about the shoes since the same organisms cultured from the wounds, doctors hands and floors are pretty much the same.
Perhaps that is the reason why, the screensaver worked, because the other 50 people that walked in to the room, find out about it. I think FORA tv has to be more careful in what they present to the public. The point was to be different than the TV networks.
Overall I like listening to them and the analysis they give. However, in section 05 Levitt mis-used the short hand phrase "Pearl before swine". He said "Pearls to swine" and the context was bad. He might be good a economics, but apparently doesn't know literature very well. In the original form it would be a dismissive insult to the audience. 'Pears before swine' is a short had derivative from a Biblical passage.
Probably both are true. Absolutely, those that failed should be accountable, particularly given the cost. Yes. In what way does this probably fact assist in understanding the life-threatening poor practice of some doctors at some times?
I am presently two thirds through Freanomics, and delighted with the out-of-the-box questions and derived theories. I'm listening to alot of people here bashing the authors, for daring to 'pick on' specific elements of our society; bashing the Doctors seems to be a real problem for some people.
I argue in support of anyone that questions the status quo.
Having personally questioned the professional integrity of realtors at large, specifically when it comes to driving thier clients away from homes presently 'lower than standard commissions'. I was delighted to read Frekanomics opinion in this regard.
Keep up the great work gentlemen.
PS: and yes, I do agree a chapter on the [what should be declared & locked up for decades] criminal elements within Goldman Sachs etc...would be well received.
Live Now
member. 
