If You’re Not Too Exhausted to Vote Again …

On a few occasions in the past, we’ve asked you to vote for awards for which Freakonomics was nominated, and you did, and we were and remain grateful. Now, if you’re not too exhausted to vote again, there’s another award (albeit a very small one, given the posted vote tally), and it’s actually a little closer to home because it’s for websites, not books. It’s called the Weblog Award, and freakonomics.com is nominated for Best Business Blog. Although we have said long and loud that Freakonomics is, in many ways, the opposite of a business book, it is plainly time to just shut up and accept that maybe it is. So if you’re inclined to click another button in favor of Freakonomics, you can do so right here — although I think I’ll vote for Marginal Revolution, which is awesomely good, every day. Assymetrical Information is pretty great, too.


JanneM

Now, I'm a bit confused; aren't you the very same guys who have argued in earlier posts that it is _not_ rational to vote? That, in fact, from a economics perspective it is if anything counterproductive to do so? What makes this instance different for us?

alihasanain

Also, why are you encouraging us to vote for Freakanomics if you are going to vote for Marginal Revolution?

Stephen J. Dubner

We never said it was irrational to vote. We said that you shouldn't vote under the illusion that your vote is likely to actually affect the election outcome. But it is rational to vote if it makes you feel good supporting a cause you believe in.

LordBefalas

Economists (and, as far as I can tell, practically everyone who's really thought about it, from theorists to gamblers to parents) tend to trust revealed preference (actions) over claimed preference (words).

Thus I'm going to vote for Marginal Revolution. After all, it'll make Dubner happy when I do (not to mention Cowen & Tabarrok.)

LordBefalas

Although, I must say, none of youse guys has the complexion (or the credible threat to ruin it) that Jane Galt claims! Her lacrimal appeal for votes has apparently claimed the heart of econ-blog-reading softies everywhere. Who'da thunk it?

JanneM

Now, I'm a bit confused; aren't you the very same guys who have argued in earlier posts that it is _not_ rational to vote? That, in fact, from a economics perspective it is if anything counterproductive to do so? What makes this instance different for us?

alihasanain

Also, why are you encouraging us to vote for Freakanomics if you are going to vote for Marginal Revolution?

Stephen J. Dubner

We never said it was irrational to vote. We said that you shouldn't vote under the illusion that your vote is likely to actually affect the election outcome. But it is rational to vote if it makes you feel good supporting a cause you believe in.

LordBefalas

Economists (and, as far as I can tell, practically everyone who's really thought about it, from theorists to gamblers to parents) tend to trust revealed preference (actions) over claimed preference (words).

Thus I'm going to vote for Marginal Revolution. After all, it'll make Dubner happy when I do (not to mention Cowen & Tabarrok.)

LordBefalas

Although, I must say, none of youse guys has the complexion (or the credible threat to ruin it) that Jane Galt claims! Her lacrimal appeal for votes has apparently claimed the heart of econ-blog-reading softies everywhere. Who'da thunk it?