If you subscribe to the Financial Times, there's no need to get this book. It's a compilation of Harford's columns from there.He basically takes serious questions (broadly: how should I raise my children, how can I have a successful relationship, how can I get rich, etc.) and answers them with an economics-based joke. As a former econ major, I thought it was hilarious. A little on the light side, sure, but a good coffee-table book. If you don't enjoy economics (or academic wittiness), don't pick this one up. If you're looking for real advice, don't pick this one up.Do pick it up if you'd like an introduction to some basic (and some esoteric) economic concepts or if you're looking to make interesting cocktail party conversation.I've read a number of the Undercover Economist books and while I find them enjoyable after a while it begins to get a bit old.Not that the subject matter isn't great, it is. I just found myself reading one chapter, finding it quite interesting, and making a mental note to share it's thoughts with friends and family, only to completely forget about it as I dove into the next chapter.I think these chapters should be read one per week to truly give the subject matter the time it deserves.funny and quick read. he does not go into a lot of details of why he chooses a certain theory/explanation to express his points, after a while you can anticipate what is he going to say, but that makes it easy and quick to read. you don't need to be major in econ to actually get his points. great for the plane.After sitting bleary eyed through many economics classes - I would have bet my life savings that a professional could never have written a fun and informative book. I was wrong.This is a thinking persons book. Lots of humor interlaced with economic concepts at a pretty deep levelYou wont be disappointedThis armchair economics book is fun and full of good tips. The approach can help to take informed and intelligent decisions in a wide array of situations. Very nice.Very good book. Worth to read.I really enjoyed this book. A quick read but Harford makes some startling observations about how we live and spend our money.Webster defines economics as the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind. The Financial Times of London has a column called Dear Undercover Economist, which receives letters from readers soliciting advice about such issues as money, work, career moves, marriage, and children. Tim Hartford is the "Undercover Economist" who submits answers to the letters through the lense of his economist viewpoint. The chapters have titles such as Speed Dating With A Money Back Guarantee; How to Spend Your Lottery Winnings; How To Fool A Wine Snob; and Selling Michigan to the Chinese. In chapter one, Speed Dating With A Money Back Guarantee, one of the letters is from a man who can't decide whether to propose to his girlfriend on the upcoming Valentines Day, or wait until next year. The Undercover Economist discusses and applies the principle of value-creation to the situation. He advises that value-creating moves should be applied sooner rather than later, because of the limitation of time. However, some decisions are worth delaying in order to acquire more information, or improve upon a situation or thing. In analyzing a decision, the cost of delay needs to be weighed against the value of waiting. Additionally, the decision maker should also strongly bear in mind that the window of opportunity can slam shut, bringing the option value to zero. These principles of value-creating decisions can be applied to new product development and introduction. Companies should not be in a rush-to-market with new product developments if the value of waiting is greater than the cost of delay. In such a scenario, valuables in waiting could include investing more time in applying further research and analysis to the planned distribution methods, investing more time and resources in fine-tuning the products positioning strategy, or further examination and improvement of the products features, benefits, and price point. On the other hand, if the value of waiting to launch a product is less than the cost of delaying the launch, the decision to proceed with the new product launch would be in the company's best interest. The book The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing, by Al Ries and Jack Trout, points out that it's better for a product to be first to market, than it is to be better. The leading brand in any category is almost always the first in the consumer's mind. The majority of the time, those companies that are first in any industry will enjoy strong leadership for a long time, regardless of whether or not they are actually better than their followers. Companies with an innovative product or service that have the opportunity to be first-to-market have the enormous value-creating potential of being first in the consumers mind (E.g. Kleenex, Coca Cola, Life Saver, and countless others). This window of opportunity of being first in the consumer's mind can slam shut if their competitor beats to market, regardless of who's product is really better. In the chapter entitled How to Spend Your Lottery Winnings, a letter told of a colleague who held a respectable position in a company. Because of recent layoffs, the colleague was asked to take on some very occasional receptionist duties in addition to her regular role. The colleague adamantly refused, with one of her reasons being that the duties would hurt her "brand equity" within the company. This is a very logical and valid argument. It's not just companies, products, and services that carry brand equity. Employees have brand equity as well. One who holds a respectable title and reputation, who adds value to a company in such a way that is perceived as more valuable than a receptionist's duties doesn't want to be seen as downgraded to responsibilities such as those of a lower rank receptionist. In this scenario, perceived value of the person's brand image would be tarnished. This harkens me to another good example of brand equity being tarnished. On a recent commute to work, I saw a child of about twelve years riding a Harley Davidson brand bicycle. This being the first time I'd ever seen the Harley Davidson brand on a bicycle, my immediate opinion was that it tarnishes the Harley Davidson brand! Harley Davidson makes a statement of cool, rugged, confident, individual, American-made freedom on the open road. Does a Harley Davidson branded bicycle built for a child make this statement? The Harley Davidson marketing story clashes with what a bicycle portrays. For Harley Davidson to put their brand on a bicycle is a serious lapse in branding judgment. Harley Davidson would be wise to cease and desist all branding of products such as bicycles. The company's brand equity will without a doubt be devalued if this type of branding continues. All in all, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. To speak in the language of economics, time (the scarcest of all resources) is better spent investing rather than consuming. The scant amount of learning material covered in this book did not make the time spent reading this book a wise investment. Rather, it was consumption of time that could've been better spent investing in a higher-value activity (like reading a better book).Yours Unflatteringly,Justin TholeThoroughly enjoyed the book, given it to my father to read now as he will probably enjoy it to .I have learned a lot with this book while laughing as well. it's a great way to approach economics even if you have no background in this field