New Piece in National Review

Abortion and Crime — by John R. Lott Jr.
One has an effect on the other, but it may not be the effect you think.

Violent crime in the United States shot up like a rocket after 1960. From 1960 to 1991, reported violent crime increased by an incredible 372 percent. This disturbing trend was seen across the country, with robbery peaking in 1991 and rape and aggravated assault following in 1992. But then something unexpected happened: Between 1991 and 2000, rates of violent crime and property crime fell sharply, dropping by 33 percent and 30 percent, respectively. Murder rates were stable up to 1991, but then plunged by a steep 44 percent.

Several plausible explanations have been advanced for the drop during the 1990s. Some stress law-enforcement measures, such as higher arrest and conviction rates, longer prison sentences, “broken windows” police strategies, and the death penalty. Others emphasize right-to-carry laws for concealed handguns, a strong economy, or the waning of the crack-cocaine epidemic.

Of all the explanations, perhaps the most controversial is the one that attributes lower crime rates in the ’90s to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision to mandate legalized abortion. . . . . .

This piece requires a subscription, though it is largely based on the discussion that I have on this issue in my book, Freedomnomics.

By the way, in the same issue Ramesh Ponnuru has a useful discussion on the gun control debate, though I believe that he is a little too optimistic.

One of the many penalties some criminals face: Lost inheritance

PARTY princess Paris Hilton is $60 million out of pocket after her billionaire grandfather - appalled by her jail term for drink-driving offences - axed her inheritance.

Family patriarch Barron Hilton was already embarrassed by his granddaughter's wild behaviour - notably when her home sex video was leaked on the internet.

But the 79-year-old considered her 23-day sentence last month the last straw. . . . .

People who are disinherited because of criminal activity face an essentially almost impossible road in challenging that decision in court. If you thought that Paris' prison term was already harsh for the type of crime that she had committed, add $60 million to that penalty.

Thanks to Alex Robson for sending this story to me.

New Piece in National Review

Abortion and Crime — by John R. Lott Jr.
One has an effect on the other, but it may not be the effect you think.

Violent crime in the United States shot up like a rocket after 1960. From 1960 to 1991, reported violent crime increased by an incredible 372 percent. This disturbing trend was seen across the country, with robbery peaking in 1991 and rape and aggravated assault following in 1992. But then something unexpected happened: Between 1991 and 2000, rates of violent crime and property crime fell sharply, dropping by 33 percent and 30 percent, respectively. Murder rates were stable up to 1991, but then plunged by a steep 44 percent.

Several plausible explanations have been advanced for the drop during the 1990s. Some stress law-enforcement measures, such as higher arrest and conviction rates, longer prison sentences, “broken windows” police strategies, and the death penalty. Others emphasize right-to-carry laws for concealed handguns, a strong economy, or the waning of the crack-cocaine epidemic.

Of all the explanations, perhaps the most controversial is the one that attributes lower crime rates in the ’90s to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision to mandate legalized abortion. . . . . .

This piece requires a subscription, though it is largely based on the discussion that I have on this issue in my book, Freedomnomics.

By the way, in the same issue Ramesh Ponnuru has a useful discussion on the gun control debate, though I believe that he is a little too optimistic.

Cost-Benefit Analysis: What is the implicit value that Animal Rights Activists Place on a Mouse's happiness?

Scientists have created the world’s first schizophrenic mice in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the illness. . . . .

Animal rights campaigners have condemned the research, saying that it is morally repugnant to create an animal doomed to mental suffering.

The mice were created by modifying their DNA to mimic a mutant gene first found in a Scottish family with a high incidence of schizophrenia, which affects about one in every 100 people. The mice’s brains were found to have features similar to those of humans with schizophrenia, such as depression and hyperactivity.

“These mutant mice may provide an important new tool for further study of the combinations of factors that underlie mental illnesses like schizophrenia and mood disorders,” said Takatoshi Hikida, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, a leading researcher. . . . .

One the one hand you have a disease that reportedly affects one in a hundred people. Even say that it is just people in Europe and the US who are affected, so we may be talking about say 8 million out of 800 or so million. On the other hand, possibly say 8,000 mice will be breed with this mutant gene (admittedly it may be fewer, but I am just picking an easy number here). Let us also assume that this research will only lead to a cure with a one percent chance. That means that animal rights activists would have to place a ten fold greater weight on the happiness of these mice than they do on people. My guess is that my numbers here are greatly weighted in favor of making the animal rights activists look reasonable (especially regarding the number of people affected by the disease), though on the other hand I may be too optimistic on this approach solving the problem (I really don't know). If you believe that the probability of this approach curing people is only one-tenth of one percent, the animal rights activists would be placing an equal weight on the happiness of both mice and people. Is this really serious thought? I don't even know that the term happiness applies to mice since it requires that they be self aware and I guess that I have a hard time believing that is the case.

Cost-Benefit Analysis: What is the implicit value that Animal Rights Activists Place on a Mouse's happiness?

Scientists have created the world’s first schizophrenic mice in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the illness. . . . .

Animal rights campaigners have condemned the research, saying that it is morally repugnant to create an animal doomed to mental suffering.

The mice were created by modifying their DNA to mimic a mutant gene first found in a Scottish family with a high incidence of schizophrenia, which affects about one in every 100 people. The mice’s brains were found to have features similar to those of humans with schizophrenia, such as depression and hyperactivity.

“These mutant mice may provide an important new tool for further study of the combinations of factors that underlie mental illnesses like schizophrenia and mood disorders,” said Takatoshi Hikida, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, a leading researcher. . . . .

One the one hand you have a disease that reportedly affects one in a hundred people. Even say that it is just people in Europe and the US who are affected, so we may be talking about say 8 million out of 800 or so million. On the other hand, possibly say 8,000 mice will be breed with this mutant gene (admittedly it may be fewer, but I am just picking an easy number here). Let us also assume that this research will only lead to a cure with a one percent chance. That means that animal rights activists would have to place a ten fold greater weight on the happiness of these mice than they do on people. My guess is that my numbers here are greatly weighted in favor of making the animal rights activists look reasonable (especially regarding the number of people affected by the disease), though on the other hand I may be too optimistic on this approach solving the problem (I really don't know). If you believe that the probability of this approach curing people is only one-tenth of one percent, the animal rights activists would be placing an equal weight on the happiness of both mice and people. Is this really serious thought? I don't even know that the term happiness applies to mice since it requires that they be self aware and I guess that I have a hard time believing that is the case.

John Palmer at the University of Western Ontario Begins Reviewing Freedomnomics

I have been reading Freedomnomics by John Lott. He is a good writer, and he is relentless in his pursuit of better economic models to explain the world. . . . .

Another Review of Freedomnomics

barbarindian writes that this is: "A must read for free market believers.."

More on Freedomnomics from a talk I gave at the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce

John Lott, professor of economics at the University of Maryland and author of Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t, says he believes the 19th Amendment in 1920 that gave women the right to vote led directly to the growth in the size of the U.S. government.

At an Arizona Chamber presentation Tuesday, Lott said the rate of increase in government (as measured by percent of GDP) in the decades following 1920 tracks perfectly with the increasing voter turnout among women during the same time period. He said women tend to favor more government programs than do men, and the change in attitudes toward the proper role of government correlates exactly with the increased involvement of women in the political process. Other of his conclusions/observations included:

• The legalization of abortion in 1973 resulted in an increase in the crime rate, especially in the murder rate. Lott’s reasoning here is that whereas before Roe v Wade, women would adopt out their children born out-of-wedlock, after 1973, the numbers of women carrying their babies to term increased. Among those who chose not to abort, many instead chose to raise their child alone in a single-parent household, which, he says, studies have shown are less nurturing than two-parent households. He said the lack of quality parenting leads directly to lower grades, higher dropout rates, more delinquency and ultimately increased crime and murder rates. . . . .

Here is a discussion of my research in German.

Even Canadians Think that Extra Taxes on "Unhealthy" Foods are a Bad Idea

It is not even clear to me that there is either an externality or mistakes being made. If people are properly anticipating the risk, imposing the tax actually means that they will be eating "too little" of these "bad" foods. The problem is undoubtedly caused because the insurance premium doesn't vary with the risks that people take, but the most direct solution is to make them pay for their health care. I have two problems with the tax. 1) Not all individuals are likely to be equally affected by these unhealthy foods. 2) Even if everyone was about equally affected, how likely is it that the government would pick the right tax and not one that were "too high." On the other hand, it is much easier to know what the cost of the medical services are. Having a tax that is "too high" is just as bad as not having the right level of a tax.

Many adults in Canada oppose implementing extra taxes on specific foods in order to reduce both consumer demand and health problems, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 50 per cent of respondents think the proposal is a bad idea, while 43 per cent consider it a good idea. . . . .

Another Review of Freedomnomics

A critical review of my book by Max Sawicky can be found here. I have put up a couple of responses on his blog. As I write in my comment on his blog, I didn't expect us to agree on everything, but I really do appreciate him taking the time to write the review.

New Op-ed: Driving the Lemon Myth Off the Lot

Here is a new piece that I have up at Fox News:

If you have ever thought of buying a new car, you are undoubtedly familiar with the claim that as soon as you drive the new car off the showroom floor its price falls dramatically. Recent popular books have asserted that simply driving a new car off the lot reduces the price by 25 percent.

Many economists explain this drop as occurring because the people who are trying to resell their cars quickly are typically doing so to get rid of “lemons.” Even if your virtually new car isn’t a lemon, people who want to buy your car can’t be sure, so they aren’t willing to pay as much as your virtually new non-lemon car is really worth. It is the classic story of “market failure.”

Nice story—except it’s wrong. In fact, the widespread perception that a new car loses substantial value as soon as a buyer drives it off the lot is really just a myth, as we shall see.. . .

Now this is cruel and inhuman criminal punishment

I can't wait until the courts review the prison policies discussed here.

The article deals with the clothing worn by women visiting male prisoners. There obvious concern involves the behavior of the prisoners around these visitors. On the other hand, one thing that isn't mentioned is that the more that male prisoners anticipate visiting from outsiders, the more of a penalty it is for them to have that perk taken away from them. There might be more problems during visitation, but there might be fewer problems at other times.

Gary Galles reviews Freedomnomics

Freedomnomics offers some insights even for someone who has taught and written in the areas it discusses. However, its logic, focus on evidence and accessible, jargon-free style makes it an even better book for the general public. It allows them to unlearn many things about markets and government intervention they have been trained to “know,” but aren’t true, and to begin to replace it with real understanding.

See also this note by

How altruism differs by country

Here is an interesting story by Reader's Digest on the rate that lost cell phones are returned in different cities around the world. The results by city can be found here. Someone should try to explain the differences by country.

Even Democrats Respond to Tax Incentives

Robb, the wife of former Virginia governor and U.S. senator Charles Robb, drew appreciative laughs when she spoke of her mother's frugality. "She wanted to hold on until 2010, so we wouldn't have to pay any estate taxes," Robb said. "Oh, durn!"

There are actually some economics studies that find that when a tax change is occurring in inheritance taxes people appear to live a couple weeks longer to take advantage of the lower take rates.

Who gets to decide if you get treatment under national health care

iPods for addicts while others go without treatment. That said, it is an interesting test to see if incentives work.

DRUG addicts are to be offered gift vouchers and prizes on the National Health Service under plans by the government’s medicine watchdog to encourage them to stay clean.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) will recommend the system of inducements, which could enable clinics to offer televisions and iPods as prizes, to tackle the burgeoning drugs problem. But patients denied drugs for blindness, Alzheimer’s and lung cancer under Nice rationing are likely to accuse it of wasting public money.

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said: “Why should these people with self-inflicted problems be given priority over people who have a genuine illness? Some people with genuine disease are being forced to sell their homes for the medicines they need.” . . . .

More on Freedomnomics

There are new mentions of my book, Freedomnomics here, here,here, and here.

Robin Hansen at GMU and Max Sawicky from the Economic Policy Institute will be providing comments for my talk at Heritage Foundation on August 1st at noon.

Another Review of Freedomnomics

Freedomnomics has something for just about everyone. It addresses some of the most debated issues of our time in a manner that is understandable, even when it turns conventional wisdom on its head - which is just about every page. . . .

Thanks for the nice reviews.

Review of Freedomnomics by Michael New at National Review Online

Michael New has a nice review of my new book:

There exists no shortage of excellent books by conservative and libertarian authors extolling the virtues of free markets. These include classics like Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom, Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Easy Lesson, and Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics. Despite this plethora of books, John Lott’s Freedomnomics is a welcome addition to this genre. Throughout the book, Lott successfully engages a number of current political debates and succeeds in making a number of cogent and well researched arguments in favor of free markets. . . .

On Laura Ingraham Today

For those interested, I will be on the Laura Ingraham's Show at 11:15 EDT to discuss Freedomnomics today.

I will be on Larry Elder's show tomorrow at 7PM EDT.

Both should be a lot of fun.

More on Freedomnomics

More mentions of my book here and here. Ann Coulter's review is still being picked up on blogs and in various newspapers.

Still More Reviews of Freedomnomics

Cao has a nice review of Freedomnomics over at her blog:

Freedomnomics explains a lot of things in an easy-to-understand conversational way. He surprises the reader with fascinating information. I’d never stopped to think, for example, that there is a relationship between the increasing number of out-of-wedlock births and abortion and increasing crime statistics.5 Did you know that? Or that there is a relationship between single parent and cohabitating unmarrieds and children who are not engaged in school, children who cut school, children who don’t perform well in school, etc. . . . .

David Henderson also has a nice review of Freedomnomics:

For the first years of its existence, radio seemed like an economic loser without government subsidy. No one could figure out how to make listeners pay, and, consequently, radio hosts and entertainers usually worked for free. In 1922, Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce, asserted, "Nor do I believe there is any practical method of payment from the listeners." But that same year, AT&T discovered that it could make money by selling ad time on radio. It sounds obvious now, but it wasn’t then. After that, radio thrived and is still thriving.

John Lott tells that story and many others – and tells them well – in his latest book, Freedomnomics. . . . .

Do these guys understand any economics?

WASHINGTON--AT&T's exclusive right to sell the Apple iPhone drew complaints on Wednesday from Democratic politicians, though it was unclear whether they were planning to do anything about it.

"The problem with the iPhone is that the iPhone with AT&T is kind of like a 'Hotel California' service," Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey said--in a nod to the Eagles hit, of course--during a hearing. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave." . . . .

So why did Apple give an exclusive deal to AT&T? That is not a tough question: Apple wanted AT&T to let Apple design how the phone worked. Doing that presumably imposed significant costs on AT&T. What type of phone do you think that Apple would have been able to design if this type of regulatory threat had kept AT&T or any other carrier from making a deal with Apple? Would the market have been better for consumers if the regulatory environment had kept the iPhone from turning out the way that it did?

There is a second problem with the Democrat's reasoning. Let's assume that they are concerned about some type of monopoly power caused by the agreement. In fact, it is hard to see how that creates any more monopoly power than Apple already has. Apple is still the single producer of the iPhone.

Book Signing at Heartland Institute

I will be giving a talk and a book signing on my new book at the Heartland Institute on Thursday, July 19, at Jaks Tap in the West Loop.

Free pizza will be served. It should be fun.

What do workplaces owe their workers?: Banning Perfume?

One option would be for this woman to get a different job. Places of work could compete for workers based on working conditions just at they compete based on salary.

An employee in the Detroit planning department filed a federal lawsuit against the city Tuesday, alleging her co-worker's strong perfume has made it impossible for her to do her job.

City planner Susan McBride filed her complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act, saying she is severely sensitive to perfumes and other cosmetics.

McBride alleges the city should accommodate her disability by prohibiting people from wearing perfume in the workplace.
. . . .

More Discussions of Freedomnomics

In a discussion about "Why Did Crime Fall in the 90's?" Mikeroeconomics writes that:

John R. Lott offered a rebuttal in his book, Freedomnomics, on why crime fell in the 90'2. Lott's explainations include the death penalty, better law enforcement, the right to bear arms. This book is a fast read and exceptionally well written. . . . .

While he hasn't yet read the book (though he says that he plans to listen to it on tape), Rogue Genius did listen to a radio interview and offers a less flattering review of my discussion on abortion:

I downloaded a podcast of Micheal Medved's program today. It said in the listing that he was interviewing the author of Freakonomics... Actually, it didn't. What it really said was the author of Freedomnomics. A guy well known in gun-nut circles, John Lot (who is now, suddenly, an economist). So, I got suckered. Anyway, I'd already downloaded it, so I listened.

Wow.

Now, as you know, I'm not much impressed with what passes for intellectualism on the right. But if anyone - and I do mean ANYONE - can't 'out logic' the arguments presented in this podcast (and, presumably, the book) that person must turn in their social security card: they can no longer be considered human.

Rogue Genius and I have a bit of an exchange at the end of his posting.

Lemuel Calhoon and SayUncle promise reviews of my book soon. The Pittsburgh Tribune also ran Ann Coulter's review of my book.

Why are milk cartons square or squarish, but soda bottles round?

Have you ever wondered why milk cartons are square but containers for soda bottles are round? I have. I was talking to a former engineer that I know recently and he suggested a simple explanation. First, one would think that there is a benefit to make all the containers square because less space will be wasted in stacking the containers. Rounded containers end up having a lot of air space between them, and the extra air space also would make it harder to keep the milk cold. So why aren't soda containers square? In a single word: pressure. Round containers deal much better with pressure than square ones. Even if you put the soda in a square container, the pressure would push out the sides so that the container would become more rounded in any case.

On the returns to studying at University

1) Eric Rasmusen raises the question of why student grades can't be posted with their names next to them. When students' grades are posted they have to use an ID number that makes it difficult to identify who got the grade.

The question is: wouldn't posting of grades create even more of an incentive for students to work harder? It is not really clear to me what the downside is, though I suppose that it would create even more pressure for grade inflation. In any case, Eric points to England where posting of names with grades has been allowed at least at Cambridge for 300 years. There is a push to end it because:

"It just adds to the stress . . . ."

But that is another way of saying that it adds to the incentive to do well.

2) I was talking to my second oldest son today about studying at universities. He has been taking summer school classes, and he pointed out to me that the range in ability in his university classes seems narrower than was the case in high school. Given the sorting that goes on as you move up through different levels of education, I don't think that claim is too surprising. The question that we discussed is what does that do to your incentive to study and the implication seems pretty clear. In high school, if there is a large gap between yourself and the next student, you could slack off some with out it making much difference. But if all the students are really tightly packed in terms of ability, the returns to studying would be higher.

Some more discussions of Freedomnomics

Some more discussions of Freedomnomics can be found here, here, and here.

Interview about book at FrontPageMagazine

Bernard Chapin has a discussion with me about Freedomnomics here.

Freedomnomics makes the 60 range on Amazon.com

Allerca cats, firms capturing the benefits from innovation

My book Freedomnomics has a paragraph on the fact that patens may not always be enough to capture the return to innovations, but that companies have still figured out ways to capture the benefits. One case that I pointed to regarding Allerca cats, which were neutered so that those who bought the cat wouldn't be able to breed them for resale. A picture of one of the first cats can be seen here. By the way, it is a very cute cat.

UPDATE: Science Blogs has pictures of multiple cats up. They also note that Time magazine found that this was one of the best inventions of 2006.

Ann Coulter reviews my new book Freedomnomics

Just in time for the Fourth of July, John Lott, author of the groundbreaking 1998 book "More Guns, Less Crime," has released another amazing book: "Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't." This book provides studies and analysis proving that your every right-wing instinct is based on sound economic analysis. . . .

Thanks, Ann!

Steve Sailer reviews Freedomnomics for the Washington Times

Steve Sailer is nice enough to have a review of my new book in today's Washington Times. Personally, I think that the review contrates too much on controversies outside the book and is a little to vague on its critiques of my book, but it is nice that he has written the review.

Mr. Lott is an even more fecund generator of plausible explanations than is Mr. Levitt. For instance, he suggests in "Freedomnomics":

* The big mark-up on restaurant drinks stems from customers tending to lingerlonger over beverages than food, tying up valuable tables.

* The introduction of secret ballots lowered voter turnout. Why? They reducedvote-buying and thus voting. Crooked political operators could no longer be surethey got the votes they paid for.

Mr. Lott offers so many fascinating theories that the "Freedomnomics'" ideas-per-page ratio is more daunting than that of the frothy "Freakonomics," which Mr. Levitt's writing partner, journalist Stephen J. Dubner, optimized to not tax tired travelers' oxygen-deprived brains at 35,000 feet. . . .

Dennis Prager's Interview of me on Freedomnomics

For those interested, Dennis Prager's interview with me can be found here. I have to say that I have been a regular listener of Dennis' since I was in graduate school at UCLA in the early 1980s.

So why are such a large percentage of British doctors trained abroad?

Question and Answer posed on Dennis Prager's radio show: The simple reason is: Socialized medicine. Medicine pays so poorly in Britain, most doctors come from abroad.

New Op-ed on the Connection between Minimum Wage Laws and Illegal Immigration

Here is my latest piece at Fox News:

The immigration debate in Congress is dead for now, but in all the heated discussion, many flaws in the legislation were never discussed.

The immigration reform debate completely ignored one big magnet for illegal entry into the United States: minimum-wage laws. And as the minimum wage increases that were recently passed this year go into effect, this problem will get worse.

Even employers willing to illegally pay subminimum wages are reluctant to hire U.S. citizens or legal residents, because even workers who’ve knowingly agreed to the low pay have a legal right to sue. And, by law, you can sue to get back double the underpayment of wages. . . .