I confess - I have a bias when a Chicago scholar is involved. Thaler is no exception to the rule.
Thaler considers himself a paternalistic libertarian. He wants people to make good decisions - but doesn't want to limit choice.
He talks about the role of "Choice architects" --- rather than the role of regulation (I'm sure he'd argue for less regulation of choice, itself - but more assurance of information).
He goes on to show a huge number of instances where "Nudges" would work better than prescriptions.
My question - would good "choice architecture" actually have prevented us from going where we've gone?
I'm skeptical. I think sub-prime - just as a simple example - is more the product of naive and blind optimism - a readily exploited situation - than it is poor choice architecture.
I'd like to agree with Thaler ---- and I suspect there's a few instances where nudges would be better than blunt, crude policy. I simply haven't figured out where, yet.
Nudges versus policy? While high taxes and outlawing smoking in public locations helped to cut down on smoking, I think the social stigma was at least as effective.
Homosexuality? While there have been some mandated gains of acceptance like limited marriage and Don't Ask/Don't Tell, I think the rapid mainstreaming of homosexuals with the current generation is a great example of a nudge working better than any changes in laws. The laws were more a response to the changing social acceptance.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I studied the politics of war some in graduate school ---- Wilson's study of warfare among social insects (ants) was one of the tougher parts of our class.
Reading his "Social conqest of earth" now but Consilience , was my favorite. All his books make me think, a great scientist that writes like a first class storyteller.
