IN DEFENCE OF FREAKONOMICS

The headline May This be the End of Freakonomics that screamed in the ET dated 13
th

May 2014 was bemusing. Leaves us nonplussed and disheartened! This headline adorns an
article by Nick Summers, reviewing the third book in the Freakonomics series, by Levitt and
Dubner, and is syndicated by, tut, tut, the Bloomberg Businessweek. The words militate
against the egalitarian beliefs of YT as a third world citizen, and represent a line of thought
seriously distorted by a Capitalist mind-set. We explain what this means below.
IK has a pucca affiliation bordering on bonding, with the concept called Freakonomics. We
always treated the word as representing a concept rather than being a brand out of the
stable of Levitt and Dubner. If we remember aright, we have written two posts on local
Freakonomic ideas in IK. For us, Freakonomics offers a startling and unsuspected insight
into a commonplace phenomenon, which goes against the grain of common sense, but once
exposed, rings true. It is a whiff of fresh air, unshackles your mind from stereotyped mental
processes, and hence as a concept, is to be valued. Another merit is that it is ideology-
neutral. The rightist, the leftist, the gay, the intellectual, the nincompoop Carl, the housewife,
the artisan, the artiste can only smile, nod and applaud the explanation in the same sense. It
doesnt bear upon complex phenomena like say the Michelson-Morley discovery, or the
Lorentz Transformation, but applies to little universal observations. The plain and simple
explanation is an authentic signboard in lifes journey. .
The learned reviewer would have Freakonomics given a burial, because the third book in the
series talks of explanations which are common beliefs. For instance the conclusion that
obesity, more than anything else, stems from a surfeit of carbs in the victims diet. What
Nicks observation logically implies is that the explanation is a non-Freakonomic explanation,
and hence not to be incorporated into a Freakonomics book! What has to be jettisoned is
therefore (~Freakonomics), rather than Freakonomics. The boot is on the other foot, maaan!
To recall that limerick about the lady from Corso, one should be in favour of moreso.! Do
google out, is a good one!
What has led Nick Summers to the inverted conclusion, nay, even the misguided inclusion of
a non-Freakonomic explanation by the authors, is the perverted tendency of our
management thinkers and their victims to include every bit and parcel of holy thought as grist
for humanitys money-making machine. The authors want to milk the concept to the last
drop, when they have no fodder left for the cow. The reviewer catches the bug, and
concludes that the concept itself is now beyond redemption. They would rather cut the goose
which lays the golden egg, than let the masses enjoy the exciting ideas for perpetuity.
Everyone can, and does, contribute to this unique stream of thought, no? The following is
from the post Bande Mey Tha Dum and explains why one gets watchmen at such low wage
rates, and why even emaciated chaps succeed in keeping miscreants at bay..
There was a spate of burglaries in our area. Mom hired a
chowkidar within her limited means. He happens to be visually
and auditorily challenged. We expected our building to be a
target of the miscreants, yet we remained, touch wood, safe.
Our (Freakonomic) explanation goes thus: our man hails from
the same sections as some of these miscreants. To violate his
turf would mean exposing a relative to police excesses, and
will be socially unacceptable Hence the mercy upon us!
Let a thousand Freakonomists Bloom!