Matt L of Saco, ME "I, apparently, see responsibilities and relationships where you do not. I do not, for instance, blithely discount second-hand effects as negligible or irrelevant whether we are talking about individual tobacco behaviors or about societal costs of traumatic brain injury resulting from reckless behavior."

Certainly there are second hand effects and 'societal costs' to certain behaviors (the size and extent of the costs would be an entire discussion in itself). The question is whether in the desire to minimize those costs the rights of individuals are infringed and whether that is acceptable. And of course the 'slippery slope' argument clearly becomes a large part of the issue.

While I appreciate the huge contributions behavioral economics has made, I'm a little wary of applying some of the conclusions of behavior economics in the public sphere. There are still strong arguments to be made against government action.

You may want to listen to this podcast (or read the WSJ debate) regarding so called 'libertarian paternalism'.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/11/richard_thaler_1.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117977357721809835.html?mod=blogsreport abuse

anameutrust of Hallowell, ME Matt writes,
"Perhaps. It all comes back to how one views the role of the individual in society. If you believe that government should protect individuals from themselves in cases where they are harming no one but themselves then I can see where you might find the argument unconvincing. The problem with that, as I and others see it, is the totalitarian implications of such a role for government."

Actually, although we may draw very different conclusions at times I suspect we share much of the same sentiment for a very limited role for government in monitoring and/or regulating private behavior. What fundamentally drives any disparity in view is a function of how we assess and evaluate evidence, what we believe constitutes harm, and to what degree we recognize relationships between `externalities' (as used by Stiglitz) and classical market factors and effects.

I, apparently, see responsibilities and relationships where you do not. I do not, for instance, blithely discount second-hand effects as negligible or irrelevant whether we are talking about individual tobacco behaviors or about societal costs of traumatic brain injury resulting from reckless behavior.

As Smith recognized more clearly than many of those now "wearing his tie", the web of entanglement between individual and society is both complex and pervasive. His moral philosophy placed great weight on the individual's responsibilities to the "greater good" while recognizing the economic forces motivating productivity and the creation of wealth.

You may appreciate the work (mentioned in yesterday's paper) by Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist from my alma mater and author of Predictably Irrational.report abuse

Matt L of Saco, ME anameutrust,

"The article you quoted from regarding the "fallacies" in portraying tobacco as a public health hazard is cute but intellectually unsatisfying."

Perhaps. It all comes back to how one views the role of the individual in society. If you believe that government should protect individuals from themselves in cases where they are harming no one but themselves then I can see where you might find the argument unconvincing. The problem with that, as I and others see it, is the totalitarian implications of such a role for government.report abuse

Matt L of Saco, ME "In turn, will you read or review Stiglitz's Making Globalization Work, 2006?"

anameutrust,

I read a few reviews of it. On some points (opening up US markets, getting rid of the sugar quota and other ag subsidies) I agree. However, there are some points that he makes (especially regarding the governments of Japan and South Korea 'piloting' an economic boom) that have been refuted by empirical evidence.

I also wonder how he would deal with the issue of bad government and the lack of institutions in poor countries.report abuse