The poll results are in. The Book Club schedule for the next few months is as follows:
Nov. 26 – The Way We Talk Now
Dec. 31 – City Life
Jan. 28 – The Curious Incident Of The Dog In The Nighttime
Feb. 25 – The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
*Dates subject to change because it’s my blog and I can do that.
I’ll be taking new suggestions in Dec. and put up a new poll. Thanks to everyone who voted! Let me know if you’re interested in hosting or reviewing.
A review from @orphanani:
Nudge introduced me to a new descriptor for myself: a libertarian paternalist. Nudge explains that libertarian paternalists believe in allowing people to make whatever choices they wish but strategically “nudging” them in the right direction – going “beyond simple opposition to government action”. The key aspect is that the libertarian paternalist doesn’t make it any more difficult for people to choose their own path. They just strategically set the default option to one that is deemed to be better for most people. In the introduction they say, “If incentives and nudges replace requirements and bans, government will be both smaller and more modest…we are not for bigger government, just for better governance”. As a capitalist with a heart, this sounds pretty great. Let the markets sort themselves out, let people have lots of choices, but try to look out for people. Keep them from falling into predictable traps (whether it be with retirement savings or prescription drug coverage).
The rest of the book follows this path down many examples and explains ways in which the default matters. They talk about many of the behavioral biases that people have been shown to possess. As a finance person who is interested in behavioral economics and finance, I find it fascinating when we can see the consequences of deviations from the “rational agents” models of classical economics. Overconfidence and the self-attribution bias are playing a big part in the finance literature these days and deserve a look when it comes to policy writing as well. Of course, the part about investing in pension plans was particularly interesting to me, since I think that I would have a hard time picking the optimal choice even for myself! I’ll be interested to hear what Molls has to say about school choice.
I really enjoyed this book. The idea of libertarian paternalism appeals to me. When I think about interventionist governing, I think about the law of unintended consequences and things like this.
I’ve heard a lot of complaints about how this book is paternalist, how the authors think you’re too stupid to make your own decisions, and how it essentially argues in favor of government babysitting. Clearly, many of these detractors didn’t read the first chapter.
The book opens with a description of a situation in a school cafeteria. The person who is responsible for stocking the cafeteria has to determine where to shelve each food item. Where each food item goes impacts the decisions that the kids make when they are choosing their lunches. The authors outline several strategies the school employee could use to determine how to stock the products; shelving the healthiest food in a place where kids are likely to buy it, shelving food items from a company willing to give the schools a kick back in a place where kids are likely to buy it, etc. The cafeteria HAS to employ a strategy for shelving items. There is no way to give equal access to every single apple and cookie the cafeteria sells. So how is “nudging” kids to eat healthy food taking away their choices?
I think the book makes a lot of good policy arguments. Having an opt-out organ donation program and 401K could help solve a lot of problems, all while doing what people claim they want to do anyway. (When polled, more people indicated they want to be organ donors than actually are.) I like that they argue, in general, for clear, easy-to-access systems of distributing information, such as letter grade placards in the windows of restaurants indicating their latest health inspection.
I had some issues with the book. I don’t feel that they cited everything really well. Any time they came up with a figure or statistic, I wanted to see it endnoted so I could check on their sources. Also, the book can drag a bit in the middle. At times I felt like they were beating a dead horse when trying to make a point.
Read @orphanani’s review here.
She asked specifically about my response to the school choice arguments in Nudge. Frankly, from everything that I have read, the jury is still out on school choice. In some places, including Washington, DC and NYC, test scores, as well as student behavior and graduation rates have improved. In other places, like Minneapolis and Atlanta, the same results haven’t been seen.
“I felt good about serving our adversarial system of constitutional adjudication.” -Seth Waxman
Kevin Drum, over at Mother Jones, discusses the importance of Obama keeping military officials on his side in this debate. He makes a solid point; it is in Obama’s best interest to keep the Pentagon leadership on his side. Obama made it clear at the beginning of the DADT repeal discussion that he was going to let the military handle the transition and if the administration doesn’t defend DADT, it takes that opportunity away.
More importantly, Obama must defend DADT, even if he doesn’t believe in it or pretty much our entire system of laws falls apart.
Mark Sherman, over at HuffPo, does a good job outlining why this is important and examples of when it has happened in the past. The Clinton Administration defended the Communications Decency Act. The Reagan Administration defended the ERA. You can’t simply chose to defend stuff you agree with and ignore the stuff you don’t or every law on the books is constantly up for grabs.
I think there is an even more important reason for the Obama Administration to defend DADT. Daniel Choi stumbles across it, but manages to miss it. He asks “When Congress enacts a law that’s unconstitutional, whose job is it to strike it down?” He answers “The Courts” but he’s not specific enough. He should say “The Supreme Court.” And this case doesn’t get to SCOTUS unless the Obama Administration defends it. And the case isn’t fairly decided unless they defend it vigorously.
“If you can’t solve their problems with therapy, solve them with drinking.” -Unknown
I spent part of last week cleaning out my parents’ attic, in an effort to organize my shit to move. I came across all kinds of stuff, from embarrassing pictures to my high school diploma. I also came across a box of stuffed animals, all gifts from various exes.
You know who loves stuffed animals? This guy:
Best. Day. Ever.
Not your every day, run-of-the-mill ginger.
Wanna know more?
| Need More? | Like What You See Here? | Copyright | |
| E-Mail RSS Feed Google Plus | Powered By Wordpress Need More By Social Media Widget Social Media Icons Are Magic Marker Twitter Feed By Xhanch TwitPics By My Pictures Widget Share Bar By Sexy Bookmarks | © 2008 - 2012 Neamhspleachas.Com All Rights Reserved |
Need More?