The reason I do like this book is simple: the best economics is all about practical theory and applications, the original economists were trying to solve very simple problem such as how to keep people from abusing the common, is there enough food to go around, etc.But, there are several problems with his book:The writing style/prose editing suggest readers with a short attention span, every time I get started on a topic it switches to another topic (the chapters have several subtopics and points seamlessly intermixed). The author's self-awareness of their success from the 1st book is painfully aware in this one, the sequel. For those in the sciences it is well known that a thesis is only as good as the data collected; and much of the authors data is from small sample sizes they go on the claim as irrefutable law (most contentious is the abortion and the crime rate correlation from the 1st book), which makes their hypothesis always...questionable; and for those critical of the Freakonimics series is their main argument against them.In the end the book does what they probably intend, makes economics a philosophy relevant for the masses again. This book presents people with material for conversation and debate after dinner with friends and family. No longer something for government committees and corporations board of directors, economics is back to its practical roots. Bit these books are just that, not necessarily critical study but contrary based investigation of some interesting and important questions, insisting that dialogue and further inquiry of the selected subject matters occur. 

Question: How is the word?
Answer: the original economists were trying