I don't know why such an intelligent academic like Steven Levitt works with such a simple-minded guy like Stephen Dubner. Dubner's presentation is unfocused, illogical, and heavily unbalanced. Sometimes I can't tell whether he's talking about economic principles, or if he's just rambling about whatever's on his mind. I'd like to learn about the flow of resources, the influence of incentives, and other topics in economics. Sometimes he connects his stories to these concepts, but too often he just seems to be ranting.
He could really learn something from the staff at Planet Money or This American Life.
For example, while Planet Money gives us a brilliant contrast between economic theories of Hayek and Keynes, and presents it as a hilarious and entertaining rap, Dubner gives us a treatise on "what an economist would do," and uses Friedman as his one and only example. Friedman may be an economist, but he represents just one of many differing, and equally valid, perspectives. It's intellectually dishonest to present a polarizing figure and describe him as a representative of an entire academic field.
And the "I may not be PC, but I tell it like it is" sentiment doesn't offer you any more credence. That type of argument may have been fresh back in, say, 1988, but to an educated and thinking audience, it's just annoying and a waste of time. Then again, to a non-critical audience, it's a time-tested tool of rhetorical manipulation. Please, stop telling us that you are an iconoclast. If you are, then let your arguments and data show it, and leave the army of straw men at home.
