The Armchair Economist is a book by Steven E. Landsburg an economics professor at the University of Chicago. It is about economics paired with every day life. He writes this book with a sharp sense of humor and language that almost anyone can apprehend. His witty and sarcastic tone make it hard for a reader to put down. "Why do rock concerts sell out in minutes -- couldn't the promoters raise the ticket prices?" "Why does movie popcorn cost so much?" "How much harm is caused by government debt?" "Why is it hard to measure inflation? Output? The rich/poor gap?”. He fills the book with questions like these explaining how economists think. It is organized as a series of daily conversations of life, news market, and environmental protection. The
…show more content…
Anyone who ponders about economics and the economics of that fine can anticipate the enormous costs of who really put the peanuts in the trash. Maybe there are cultures in which such fines would ensure negligible violations, but there are probably as many cultures in which disputes over people putting peanuts in someone else's trash cans would produce more waste than the peanuts …show more content…
Landsburg says that when seat belts were invented, the number of traffic accidents increased dramatically. This is due to the safety that the seat belt provides. With a more dangerous car, people drive a lot more conservatively. But, with seat belts, people feel safer and therefore people drive faster and more reckless. The idea of feeling more protected incentives a driver to drive as if they were invincible. Obviously the rate of traffic accidents proved those people wrong.
Here is an excerpt from one of Landsburg’s chapters about the famous Bridgman v. Sturges case.
Bridgman made candy in the kitchen of his London home. He got along well with his neighbors, including Dr. Sturges, who lived and practiced medicine in a house around the corner. In 1879, Dr. Sturges built a new consulting room at the end of his garden, adjacent to Bridgman's kitchen. [Bridgman produced candy.] Only after the construction was complete did the doctor discover that Bridgman's machinery made noise-so much noise that the consulting room was unusable. Sturges brought suit in an attempt to shut down Bridgman's business.
Sturges won the case. He was indeed able to shut down Bridgman’s candy business. The judges explicitly mentioned to the result their settlement would have on the making of goods and services when giving account for their settlement. So no matter what the court decided, the goods would belong to of whoever cherished
Anyone who ponders about economics and the economics of that fine can anticipate the enormous costs of who really put the peanuts in the trash. Maybe there are cultures in which such fines would ensure negligible violations, but there are probably as many cultures in which disputes over people putting peanuts in someone else's trash cans would produce more waste than the peanuts …show more content…
Landsburg says that when seat belts were invented, the number of traffic accidents increased dramatically. This is due to the safety that the seat belt provides. With a more dangerous car, people drive a lot more conservatively. But, with seat belts, people feel safer and therefore people drive faster and more reckless. The idea of feeling more protected incentives a driver to drive as if they were invincible. Obviously the rate of traffic accidents proved those people wrong.
Here is an excerpt from one of Landsburg’s chapters about the famous Bridgman v. Sturges case.
Bridgman made candy in the kitchen of his London home. He got along well with his neighbors, including Dr. Sturges, who lived and practiced medicine in a house around the corner. In 1879, Dr. Sturges built a new consulting room at the end of his garden, adjacent to Bridgman's kitchen. [Bridgman produced candy.] Only after the construction was complete did the doctor discover that Bridgman's machinery made noise-so much noise that the consulting room was unusable. Sturges brought suit in an attempt to shut down Bridgman's business.
Sturges won the case. He was indeed able to shut down Bridgman’s candy business. The judges explicitly mentioned to the result their settlement would have on the making of goods and services when giving account for their settlement. So no matter what the court decided, the goods would belong to of whoever cherished