John Lott

How free-market economies really work
(and why they work so well)

Are free market economies really based on fleecing the consumer? Is the U.S. economy truly just a giant free-for-all that encourages duplicity in our everyday transactions? Is everyone from corporate CEOs to your local car salesman really looking to make a buck at your expense?

In Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't,

economist and bestselling author John R. Lott, Jr., answers these and other common economic questions, bravely confronting the profound distrust of the market that the bestselling book Freakonomics has helped to popularize. Using clear and hard-hitting examples, Lott shows how free markets liberate the best, most creative, and most generous aspects of our society--while efforts to constrain economic liberty, no matter

how well-intentioned, invariably lead to increased poverty and injustice. Extending its rigorous economic analysis even further to our political and criminal justice systems, Freedomnomics reveals:

How the free market creates incentives for people to behave honestly
How political campaign restrictions keep incumbents in power
Why legalized abortion leads to family breakdown, which creates more crime
Why affirmative action in police departments leads to higher crime rates
How women's suffrage led to a massive increase in the size of government
Why women become more conservative when they get married and more liberal when they get divorced
How secret ballots reduce voter participation
Why state-owned companies and government agencies are much more likely to engage in unfair predation than are private firms
Why the controversial assertions made in the trendy book Freakonomics are almost entirely wrong

Entertaining, persuasive, and based on dozens of economic studies spanning decades, Freedomnomics not only shows how free markets really work--but proves that, when it comes to promoting prosperity and economic justice, nothing works better. *

Multiple regression analyses are rarely the subject of heated public debate or 225-page books for laypeople. But John R. Lott, Jr.'s study in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies showing that concealed-carry weapons permits reduced the crime rate set off a firestorm. The updated study, together with illustrative anecdotes and a short description of the political and academic response to the study, as well as responses to the responses, makes up Lott's informative More Guns, Less Crime.
In retrospect, it perhaps should not have been surprising that increasing the number of civilians with guns would reduce crime rates. The possibility of armed victims reduces the expected benefits and increases the expected costs of criminal activity. And, at the margin at least, people respond to changes in costs, even for crime, as Nobel-Prize winning economist [TAG]Gary Becker showed long ago. Allusions to the preferences of criminals for unarmed victims have seeped into popular culture; Ringo, a British thug in Pulp Fiction, noted off-handedly why he avoided certain targets: "Bars, liquor stores, gas stations, you get your head blown off stickin' up one of them."

But Lott's actual quantification of this, in the largest and most comprehensive study of the effects of gun control to date, a study well-detailed in the book, provoked a number of attacks, ranging from the amateurish to the subtly misleading, desperate to discredit him. Lott takes the time to refute each argument; it's almost touching the way he footnotes each time he telephones an attacker who eventually hangs up on him without substantiating any of their claims.

Lott loses a little focus when he leaves his firm quantitative base; as an economist, he should know that the low number of rejected background checks under the Brady Bill doesn't demonstrate anything by itself, because some people may have been deterred from even undergoing the background check in the first place, but he attacks the bill on this ground anyway. But the conclusions that are backed by evidence--that concealed-weapons permits reduce crime, and do so at a lower cost to society than increasing the number of police or prisons--are important ones that should be considered by policymakers. --Ted Frank --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.*

Following up on his controversial study More Guns, Less Crime, economist Lott argues that widespread gun ownership prevents crime. He cites survey data and news reports to argue that the fear that victims might be armed strongly deters criminals, and that guns are used in self-defense or to ward off criminal threats about 2.3 million times a year. Because they impede law-abiding citizens' access to guns, even mild gun-control regulations-assault weapons bans, "one-gun-a-month" laws-actually increase crime, according to Lott, while right-to-carry laws lower crime and help prevent (or violently terminate) terrorist attacks and "rampage" shootings. Even measures to keep guns away from children, like "gun-free school zones" and "safe storage" laws that require guns to be locked away, are misguided because children need guns for self-defense (he cites news reports of kids as young as 11 gunning down criminals). The benefits of untrammeled gun availability are clear, Lott insists, and only the anti-gun bias and selective reporting by the media and government officials have kept this fact out of public consciousness. Lott supports his bold claims with elaborate statistical analyses that tease sometimes small effects out of the welter of factors that influence crime rates; there are lots of graphs and tables, and much space is devoted to scholarly discussions of statistical methodologies. Many readers will find these sections rough going, but Lott's provocative thesis is sure to stir interest among second-amendment stalwarts and gun-control supporters alike.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.