Freakonomics vs. the Tipping Point

263 Words2 Pages
After reading information on the tipping point and freakonomics, I have found NO correlation at ALL. These views are so totally different that they are like oil and vinegar. In the passage Levitt believes that crime dropped in the 1990's because of roe vs. wade (the legalization of abortion).Levitt believes that poor people should abort their unwanted kids, if this takes place crime will decrease. The unwanted children will eventually turn into criminals and raise the crime rate. I personally believe this is so far from the truth. I am from a poor family who was raised in the projects; we are proud hard working people who strive for greatness. This is America, so everyone has the right to the first amendment “Freedom of Speech”. On the other hand Malcolm Gladwell has a totally different view of crime decreases. His view depicts crime decreasing due to more Police power, Gladwell believes if there are more police that people would commit less crime. I agree, if there are more police patrolling crime would be very minimal. I actually agree with both sides, you would have less crime if unwanted children are aborted and you would have less crime if police patrol more. Works Consulted Works Cited A smaller point to also consider: Gladwell left out one other major reason that, according to Levitt’s research, crime did begin to fall in the 1990′s: the waning of the violent crack trade. (Thanks to Darren Rovell for pointing out the Gladwell blog.) Gladwell, Malcolm. "Freakonomics." Freakonomics. Malcolm Gladwell, n.d. Web. 1 Apr.

More about Freakonomics vs. the Tipping Point

Open Document