It was good but not as good as the first book.
informative

1.How Casual Sex nowadays affecting prostitution business
2.Possible Algorithm to detect terrorist via banking
3.The impact of TV on crime
4. "Behavior change is hard" - How Sanitizer, Seatbelt save many lives eventually..
5. How climate scientists are more like economists ( rely on deductions based on past database so that they can produce future assumptions)

If you're interested to know about these bizzarre assumptions and ideas, you can read this book. I personally enjoy this book and it deserve 5 stars from me.

Great follow-up to the first book. A fantastic book of interesting ideas and information that you didn't even know you cared about.
informative lighthearted medium-paced

Same as my review for Freakonomics with the following:

The discussion of geo-engineering here is essential and under-thought about. If you, like me, believe that global warming is real and yet are pessimistic about humans being willing or able to change their habits significantly to deal with it (and I must imagine that there are a lot of us), then it is irresponsible to not take this seriously as an option.

This is a broad-spectrum take on econ, mostly microecon, the sequel to plain-ol' Freakonomics. The chapters read like a few case studies seen in the subtitle. A possibly misleading aspect of the subtitle is that it could be read to include more content, but this is not the case.

If you've not read any pop-econ books, read it! Otherwise you're likely already familiar with Daniel Kahneman and how we're not classically rational, and that our irrationallities can be super interesting.

One of the case studies includes an interview with a former prostitute who found an inelastic demand for her services, and that as they grew in price, they often sunk in effort required, as the clients were generally older and more interested in wining and dining.

The chapter on global cooling solutions has been evaluated, panned, and reviewed everywhere already, and it seems like most of the negative analysis missed the idea that we should approach wild problems with the innovative children of bull sessions and not expect that existing technologies can be scaled to fit the problem. The example they give is manure production in cities before the advent of automobiles, which effectively cleaned up the streets in a way that nobody facing the problem expected. So the suggestion is analogical, and given that approach review a few weird ideas. Plausible or not, they're totally fascinating.

Bring on Freakonomics III!!! Frankenomics? Ultrasuperfreakonomics? Ubernomics? Nomnomnomics?
funny informative fast-paced

Just as good as the first!
informative medium-paced