SuperFreakonomics-Steve Levitt & Stephen Dubner (11/4/09)

SuperFreakonomics with Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner
Steve Levitt, Economics Professor, University of Chicago; Blogger, The New York Times; Co-author, Freakonomics, SuperFreakonomics
Stephen Dubner, Journalist; Blogger, The New York Times; Author, Freakonomics, SuperFreakonomics
In Conversation with Alan Murray, Deputy Managing Editor and Executive Editor Online, Wall Street Journal

INFORUMs Next 21st Century Visionary Award

With Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner revealed the good, bad, ugly and super freaky of the world around us. The freakquel is here. Back with more than pop-culture trivia, Inforum's next 21st Century Visionary Award recipients are ready to revolutionize our understanding of causality in an incredibly interconnected world.

[@Visfen]

I don't feel offended, I feel enlightened.

[@camilletraill]

THE MOVIE HE REFERS TO IS THE NOTEBOOK!!!!!!!!!

[@jefthabisschop238]

I got it too at first 😂

[@someyoungguyjohnson7239]

Miles (ha ha) walked drunk versus miles driven. Wouldn't it be more accurate to base it on minutes (or hours) spent walking or driving? Kind of like how they say flying is much safer per km than driving, yet it probably isn't (my opinion) when you factory in the amount of time actually in the "window of danger", or behind the wheel or in your seat. For example, 1 hour of driving drunk is likely much more dangerous than 1 hour of walking. takes the rate of motion out of the equation, I guess. Just a thought.

[@andytparrott]

Agreed. A drunk person five minutes away from home by foot is probably much less likely to die in an accident on the trip home than a drunk person five minutes away from home by car.

[@andytparrott]

Another important question: are they controlling for blood alcohol level? Could be that drunk pedestrians killed in accidents are way drunker than their counterparts traveling by car.

[@Trisket]

@tngart He goes on to explain that carbon dioxide has a half live of a century and if we were to completely cut carbon emissions right now the earth would continue to heat up and we wouldn't see any improvement for 100 years, also the fact that as it currently stands so much of our way of life is dependent on fossil fuels significant cuts (20-30%) are impractical and is an impossible idea to sell to people. There was no bias in that statement merely cold hard facts.

[@egtresident]

I want to be levit's apprentice for a year

[@daobagua]

@majik2hanz How about Friedmans Libertarianism.

[@tngart]

They lost me when they started saying carbon reduction isn't the solution to global warming... I wonder who might have funded that research. But his pollutant-enabling made sense when he said he went to a Chicago economics school where Milton Friedman was highly influential. The video "2010 Class Day: The Moral Limits of Markets " is a better perspective and adds a rebuttal to the prostitution makes good money point.

[@LSDetroit]

tard