November 06, 2006, Featuring Richard Thaler
Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business defends the idea of libertarian paternalism--how government might use the insights of behavioral economics to help citizens make better choices. Host Russ Roberts accepts the premise that individuals make imperfect choices but challenges Thaler on the likelihood that government, in practice, will improve matters. Along the way they discuss the design of Sweden's social security system, organ donations and whether professors at Cornell University are more or less like you and me.
Readings and Links related to this podcast
|
Podcast Readings
HIDE READINGS |
|---|
|
Highlights
| Time |
Podcast Highlights
HIDE HIGHLIGHTS |
|---|---|
| 0:53 | Libertarian paternalism defined |
| 2:33 | Operating procedure means someone has to choose something. Cafeteria example. Presentation order matters. Who picks order? |
| 8:03 | What if the person picking the order does it by personal idiosyncracies, or even corruptly? Savings example. Defaults matter for |
| 11:00 | Opt-out v. opt-in. Why can't the market do it as soon as it's understood to matter? Why would a third party do better? |
| 14:34 | Ed Glaeser, economies of scale. Do individuals typically seek sophisticated investment advice? Cornell research. |
| 22:15 | Swedish social security privatization example. |
| 32:20 | Prescription drugs, design features, maximizing choice, Medicaid, Medicare, new pension bill, safe harbor, Labor Dept. Can government choose for me, even ostensibly in my self-interest? What if the government routinely does it poorly? |
| 39:47 | Should the government just get out of providing guidance about services? Governments do some things effectively, but realistically and in principal, which things? Do defaults under the auspices of a government imprimatur look more respectable than private-sector defaults to the unsophisticated? |
| 48:02 | Organ donations example, drivers' licences. Opt-in v. opt-out in Spain | How can we as individuals or economists decide where to stand about what governments should or should not do? Inept neglect, advising governments to move forward a step from where they are at, versus advising them to move forward toward an ideal. |
- On the podcast The Economics of Moneyball: Is it the government's duty to break up monopolies? Is antitrust sometimes worse than the monopoly itself? [See also Antitrust by Fred McChesney in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics--Econlib Ed.]
-
Also on The Economics of Moneyball: Patriatisme économique (economic nationalism) has been greatly discussed recently in France. Do domestic companies owned by foreigners or their governments behave differently from domestically-owned ones with regard to employment, outsourcing, etc.?
- Mailbag on Postrel on Style (Time mark 55:43) and
- Mailbag on Caplan on Discrimination and Labor Markets (Time mark 47:19)
Posted by Russ Roberts
Comments (1)
I have just finished listening to my very first podcast from your site. It was the interview with Richard Thaler on Libertarian Paternalism. I greatly share your general scepticism about the subject and ist implications for public policy. (I am a freelace economic consultant and have written reports for financial institutions on the lessons of behavioural finance, including Richard's work on the subject.) Neverthless I greatly appreciated your open-minded approach to the interview and your willingness to find common ground with Richard. Too often libertarians come across as closed minded and all knowing. Well done. You have gainmed a dedicated listener on their first exposure.
Posted on November 14, 2006 07:32 PM
Subscribe to EconTalk
- To subscribe in iTunes, click this button
or drag this icon 
into your iTunes Podcasts playlist - Other podcast players (Yahoo Podcasts, Podnova, etc.): Feedburner or Audio RSS feed (XML)
- Text RSS feed (XML. Includes audio.)
- Email (Weekly email with latest text and audio. No spam.)
- FAQ (Instructions and more options)
Audio:
Text and audio:
More:
Top of Page