Introduction

This chapter got me pretty interested and prepared for what to expect from this book, because at first I had no idea how the author was going to use economics to discuss interesting issues. The basic message that I got from the introductory chapter was too look at the hidden incentives behind things when examining different situations, and how looking from a third person view of something can help clear up the picture. Here are some examples of associations that were made in the book that really got me thinking.
First, I thought it was interesting how he associated the Roe v Wade decision and abortion with lowering the crime rate. The theory behind this was because abortion was made legal, people who could not raise children properly because of the situation that they were in would be able to terminate the birth, so as not to raise the child in the adverse conditions that they are in. This created a smaller pool of children who would have been brought up in adverse conditions, and who would have had a greater chance of becoming criminals because they couldn't be guided by proper role models/parents. This made sense to me, because those kids who are raised in bad neighborhoods are going to have a harder time deciphering whats right or wrong in the future, because most of there parents who are living in those conditions either don't know correct morals themselves, or don't have time to teach there kids because they are struggling to work to put food on the table and clothes on there kids backs. This means that the children will end up learning there values on the streets, which could either make the child extremely tough and motivated to have a better life, or continue in the wrong direction.
The next statement that got my attention was how, on average, real estate brokers leave there personal homes on 10 days longer, and sell for more, because of there incentive to obviously get as much money as possible out of a sale. A real estate broker will try to sell there client's home as quickly as possible, because an additional increase in mark up is not a big enough increase in there commission to be an incentive to try to get as much money as possible from a sale. This also makes complete sense to me, because a real estate broker is not going to wait an additional few weeks for an additional few hundred dollars of commission, it makes more sense to bang out the sale and move on to the next house.
The last idea was how an area with low birth rates actually has more cesarean section operations, because of a doctors incentive for a more expensive procedure and bigger payout. Money is an influential factor in people's lives, and as we saw with Enron, professionals can become criminals at the right price. This was not completely convincing to me, but it once again was a valid point.