Freaky, not cool

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

: 0ften, the most serious problem with sequels to a very successful first book (or even first film) is that the writer (or filmmaker) ends up trying too hard to better the original, without success. A similar problem plagues the otherwise well written Superfreakonomics. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner just try too hard to match up to the original Freakonomics and the result is far from satisfactory for all those who enjoyed reading the original.

No one can, however, fault the authors for their basic intention—take interesting, unconventional ideas and explain them in equally unconventional ways—Why suicide bombers should buy life insurance, is an interesting ‘freaky’ question asked by the authors. In choosing to explore the freaky to help readers unravel what are usually complex theories in economics textbooks (more often than not loaded with cumbersome mathematics), the authors offer a valuable service to the average intelligent reader, who prefers not to dabble in Economics 101.

Unfortunately, the authors don’t begin this quest particularly well by choosing to ignore the global financial meltdown in favour of ‘more engaging topics.’ Perhaps the authors had already written up most of this book before the crisis broke and were unable to revise it quickly enough to include a chapter on the most important economic events of our time.

This omission, whatever the actual reason, robs the book published in the aftermath of the crisis, of a critical element. One expected Superfreakonomics to give us interesting insights into the actions of Wall Street and governments around the globe over the last one year. In the end probably a case of unfortunate timing.