Interesting look at how we adjust for changes to the safety of various activities we do. ( )

This was not the book I thought it was going to be. Per the title, I was looking forward to a study of the many ways in which industry and government safety regulations aimed at increasing safety actually turn out to heighten vulnerability. While there is a small smattering of compelling outside examples contained within which support this idea, up to three quarters of the chapters focused specifically on the financial crisis of 2007-08, and to this non-economist those chapters were almost unbearably dry. Somehow, I still managed to finish. ( )

This isn't the type of book that I would normally read however, it was selected for my Book Club and the title did catch my interest. That said, the first few chapters made me feel that I was back in Economics class in college and that wasn't pretty. However, as I got into the book I found that the areas that were discussed were extremely thought-provoking..

The first several chapters dealt with risk involved with money - stocks, bonds, Federal Reserve and how it tries to control inflation and making our assets safer.

Quoting the book I found this part about political interference regarding the changes in bank loan requirements which eventually caused some of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco very enlightening and expect that many Democrats will disagree with what was said.
"Brad DeLong, an economist at the Univ of Calif at Berkeley, who had served in Clinton's Treasury from 1993 to 1995, described many years later why he and his fellow Democrats pushed deregulation (for home loans): "It had been more than 60 years since financial disruption had had more than a minor impact on overall levels of production and employment....The poorer 2/3 of America's population appeared to be shut out of the opportunities to borrow at reasonable interest rates,...Depression-era restrictions on risk seemed less urgent, given the US Federal Reserve's proven ability to build firewalls between financial distress and aggregate demand. New ways to borrow and to spread risk seemed to have little downside....it seemed worth trying. It wasn't."

Financial issues were also low-balled concerning the threat of baby boomers approaching retirement without sufficient savings.

Other areas of interest that were highlighted included:

Football and hockey helmets and how they have changed the amount of risk that players accept,
anti-lock brakes and seat belts and how they should have made driving safer but may have only increased the risk level that a driver will take,
(I found it amusing that New Hampshire is the only state that does not require seat belt usage - their Motto -Live Free or Die.)
FDA new drug approval - is faster with higher risk from possibly dangerous drugs better than slower and less risk that bad drugs will reach the market?

Natural disasters and their increasing costs - Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy impacted millions of people and climate change was touted as partially to blame but what about the decision of a growing population to settle and build in areas that are not really conducive to settlement? If an area is repeatedly wiped out by hurricanes and other power natural occurring events, should the government continue to provide subsidies to rebuild?

I kept reading wondering if I had a choice how much of a risk was I willing to take?
Would I build my home in a floodplain or near a forest or on a cliff subject to mudslides? If my home had been destroyed, would I rebuild in the same place?

It appears that as we increase the safety in our society were are counterbalancing by increasing the risk as well. Is this a good thing?

I won't say this was a great book, at times it was hard to keep going, but it did give me lots to think about. ( )

Not for me. It seemed shallow, with a kind of forced seriousness. It attempts to bring together elements of risk and risk management, and a counter-intuitive view of efforts to improve products and behavior that instead result in greater danger. Like making car seat belts mandatory: good idea? Or does this just make drivers less cautious, negating its benefits? Sorry. Seat belts are a good idea. I'm interested in the idea of unintended consequences, but this book lacked substance. Maybe it got better - I acknowledge I did not finish it. ( )