The Economics of Sockpuppetry

Remember Freakonomics, the book co-authored by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt?  The central argument of the book is that people respond to incentives, and are willing to cheat if the incentives to do so outweigh the consequences.  A lot of attention has been given to the book's controversial contention that crime dropped in the 1990s because many would-be criminals were aborted post Roe v Wade.  Less attention has been given the reasons that the book cites as cause of increased crime previous to that point: a push for rights of the accused, concern that punishments being handed out were being too tough on blacks and Hispanics, and the "liberal ethos" of the time.  

Naturally, a book that makes such statements is in for an argument... from the right. This Chicago School tome has been singled out as being too liberal, and denying the righteous power of the free markets.

The response is Freedomnomics, by former University of Chicago economist John R. Lott, jr. If Lott's name sounds familiar, it may be because his theory about why crime dropped is explicitly mentioned -- and dismissed -- in the pages of Freakonomics.  Lott, the author of More Guns, Less Crime cited statistics that purported to show that where there were more concealed weapons, crime fell. This book was very important to the debate on that issue. It helped kick start drives that had been stalled at that point, and gave those in favor of carry laws a big academic stick, filled with graphs and charts, with which to beat their opponents. It also secured Lott a spot with the American Enterprise Institute.

Unfortunately, Lott's thesis had two problems:  

1. Other people were unable to find the results he cited when looking at the same numbers, leaving many people to believe that he had gotten to his conclusions through the application of a great deal of fudge.

2. John Lott -- professor and author -- was vigorously defended by Mary Rosh, a young female student who had attended most of Lott's classes and loved his work.  The trouble was Mary Rosh was a sockpuppet.  

Lott created the Rosh character to provide lots of virtual praise.

I have to say he was the best professor that I ever had," s/he wrote.  "You wouldn't know that he was a 'right-wing' ideologue from the class... There were a group of us students who would try to take any class that he taught. Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors more to be exposed to other ways of teaching graduate material."

Mary was also a staunch defender of Lott's thesis that crime had been reduced through the application of shootin' irons. As a wee-little female who drew the unwanted attention of dastardly men, she championed his cause.

"Do you really think that most women can out run your typical criminal?...Even if I am not wearing heels, I don’t think that there are many men that I could outrun.

As a woman, who weighs 114 lbs, what am I supposed to do if I am confronted by a 200 lbs. man?"

Mary Rosh continued to blast Lott's opponents, and praise his work, showing up seemingly every time his name was mentioned.  Mary's postings went on for three years. Only after investigation revealed that there had never been any such student, did Lott finally confess.

At the same time Lott's sockpuppetry was being revealed, his research was also under attack.  The editor of Science called him simply, "a fraud," and the National Academy of Sciences launched a review.

This story may sound amusing, but there's an aspect of it that's simply amazing: through all of this, as Lott's lying and exaggeration was revealed, his post at the American Enterprise Institute was never in doubt.  Regnery Publishing, Inc -- which had no problem publishing such bits of tripe as The Secret Life of Bill Clinton and Unfit for Command despite their lack of facts -- was only too happy to publish his book. If you think there is a level to which AEI, Regnery, and their ilk will not sink, you haven't been paying attention.

John R. Lott, jr. is the poster child from the "conservative intellectual," a man who is a demonstrated serial liar, but who is still given voice and money by the right. Neither truth, nor any sort of moral code, are allowed to get in the way of propagating conservative talking points.

And what are those talking points in Freedomnomics? They are (and I'm not joking about this)

• The expansion of the federal and state governments, along with increases in both taxes and regulation, can be traced, not to war or economic turmoil, but to giving women the right to vote.


• Abortion caused an increase in crime -- including a rise in murder as much as 7% (the real culprit is sexual freedom).


• Problems of corruption, such as Enron, occur because there is too much government regulation.


• Another factor in the rise of crime is affirmative action, which has ruined our nation's police forces.


• Price gouging during a disaster is good for the economy.

Suffrage as the cause of government debt and high taxes. I wonder what Mary would think of that? Actually, I suppose Lott's attribution of a more oppressive government to the idea that women seem more motivated by fear than they are by hope, is perfectly fitting with his perpetually frightened alter-ego, running from dirty men in her heels.

Come to think of it, Freedomnomics has some reviews online that are pretty glowing.  

As far as what positions struck me as being the strongest, I'd have to say that his link between women's suffrage and the swelling of government was ironclad.

As far as the politics goes, Dr. Lott is obviously a man of the right but the book is not a partisan affair. It is a sincere attempt to demystify the innerworkings of economics.

Lott takes on very politically incorrect topics that the mainstream media would never touch such as how affirmative action influences police effectiveness and how giving women the right to vote has influenced the size of the government.

I wonder how many of these Lott wrote?

(Note: Yes, the book came out a year ago, but the weekend of the Fourth seemed like a good time to drag out a book with a red, white and blue cover decorated with a slice of apple pie, and to point out the silliness that pervades the right.)