What a difference a week makes

Last week’s issue of The Economist gleefully (and a bit prematurely, I might add) reported that everything in Freakonomics was wrong.

This weeks edition finds Freakonomics occupying a highly coveted spot as one of The Economist’s “books of the year.”

We’re crossing our fingers regarding what next week’s issue will bring.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 30

View All Comments »
  1. londenio says:

    I read The Economist as frequently as I recommend Freakonomist to my friends: often.

    The Economist did not say that everything in Freakonomics was wrong! They merely described Foote and Goetz. I am sure they were eagerly waiting your reply, as the rest of us.

    Nobody enjoys a good debate over a controversial topic more than the Brits, and the people at St. James Street are no exception.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. londenio says:

    I read The Economist as frequently as I recommend Freakonomist to my friends: often.

    The Economist did not say that everything in Freakonomics was wrong! They merely described Foote and Goetz. I am sure they were eagerly waiting your reply, as the rest of us.

    Nobody enjoys a good debate over a controversial topic more than the Brits, and the people at St. James Street are no exception.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Londenio,

    You suggest that The Economist was eagerly awaiting our reply.

    I wrote the author of The Economist article, Simon Cox, when I posted my blog entry about our initial response to Foote and Goetz.

    For the record, I never heard a word back from Cox.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Londenio,

    You suggest that The Economist was eagerly awaiting our reply.

    I wrote the author of The Economist article, Simon Cox, when I posted my blog entry about our initial response to Foote and Goetz.

    For the record, I never heard a word back from Cox.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. GamblingEconomist says:

    I don’t think you should be too offended by The Economist article. Things like computer code errors happen but this happened to be an important enough error that you had to expect some flak from its discovery. While it would have been nice for them to wirte about your new results, you also can’t necessarily expect a weekly update of the analysis to appear in the magazine. Note that the article says “…the underlying thesis, however unpalatable to some, is not likely to be dispelled by a stroke of Mr Foote’s computer key. Mr Levitt says his case is based on a ‘collage of evidence’, of which the flawed test is one small piece”.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. GamblingEconomist says:

    I don’t think you should be too offended by The Economist article. Things like computer code errors happen but this happened to be an important enough error that you had to expect some flak from its discovery. While it would have been nice for them to wirte about your new results, you also can’t necessarily expect a weekly update of the analysis to appear in the magazine. Note that the article says “…the underlying thesis, however unpalatable to some, is not likely to be dispelled by a stroke of Mr Foote’s computer key. Mr Levitt says his case is based on a ‘collage of evidence’, of which the flawed test is one small piece”.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. GamblingEconomist –

    I’m not offended by The Economist, just having some fun with it.

    Steve

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. GamblingEconomist –

    I’m not offended by The Economist, just having some fun with it.

    Steve

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0