At Cato Unbound, I've replied to Richard Thaler here, and to Jonathan Klick here. My reply to Shane Frederick should go up tomorrow.
UPDATE: My reply to Frederick is here.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Center for Blurbs in the Public Interest
Blog Archive
Contributors:
Any emails sent to the authors and related to this weblog may be posted, in whole or in part, unless the sender explicitly requests otherwise. Requests for anonymity will be respected.
Post extensions hack helpfully provided by Hackosphere.
Post extensions hack helpfully provided by Hackosphere.
Glen's Favorite Posts
- A Libertarian Case Against Non-Voting
- A Matter of Coase
- A Metaphor
- And Yet More Rational Curmudgeonry
- Ashton, Demi, and Coase
- Bar Flight
- Bar Flight, Part 2
- Bar Flight, Part 3
- Breaking News
- Coase's Toilet
- Condorcet's Committee
- Dietary Efficiency
- Do Teens Commit Suicide More Often?
- Doing Lines
- Every Abortion Analogy Fails
- Fat Chance
- Flatus Comitatus
- How "Libertarian Paternalism" Greases the Slope
- How to Score
- In Defense of Gouging
- Is God the Decider or the Knower?
- Joey Tribiani, Meet Gary Becker
- Karaoke Queuing
- Kopy-okay?
- Labors of Love
- Lexicographic Lapses
- Lifting Waits
- Linguistic Cosmos and Taxis
- Litter Bugged
- More Breaking News
- Naturally Binary
- Optimal Christmas Decorating
- Optimal Crime and Punishment
- Optimal Haircuts
- Optimal Sex Frequency
- Random Enfranchisement
- Relationship Cycles
- Skill Crane Skillz
- Spontaneous Orders and Internal Critiques
- Statistical Dating
- Stop the Rape Penalty
- Suicide Bombed
- Superfunding, Part 1
- Superfunding, Part 2
- The (in)Significance of Significance
- The Calculus of Commitment
- The Cause of Oz
- The Coasean Blues
- The Corpse Theorem
- The Economics of Alchemy
- The Libertarian Small Sample Problem
- The Rational Curmudgeon
- The Rational Romantic
- The Slide Rules of Attraction
- The Truth About "Libertarian Paternalism"
- Those Wacky Raelians
- Toilet Training
- Transtemporal Economics
- Turning Market Failure on Its Head
- Virgin Management
- What's Comb Over You?
- WHO's Healthcare Rankings, Part 1
- WHO's Healthcare Rankings, Part 2
- WHO's Healthcare Rankings, Part 3
- WHO's Watching Over You
- Why I Hate Restroom Hand Dryers
- Will Power: Fund or Muscle?
Tom's Favorite Posts
- A Free Birthday Song
- A Song for Loving Day
- Andrew Jackson, President and Traitor
- Constitution as Contract
- Dunston v. Priscilla
- Excuses to Sing About Contract Law
- Executive Skateboarding
- Folding Heart Card, Uncopyrighted
- Gory Details by Demand
- Hello, Jonah
- How Surfing Saved My Sabbatical
- The Interstate Commerce Blues
- Jefferson's Wall, Take Two
- "Just Believe!" Why?
- Law School Rankings as if the Public Mattered
- Mental Workouts
- "Monster": A Consent Theory Sing-Along
- Name That War
- Necessary Attributes of Natural Rights
- Nice to Be Wanted
- Obama: An Oppressed Minority Who Might End the War
- Overreacting to Terrorism
- Pertinax: Arnold's Next Starring Role?
- The Puzzle of Penn Law School's Ranking
- Reforming the USN&WR Law School Rankings
- Surfing Property Rights
- Surfing, Zen, and Logical Fallacy
- That's My Boy
- Thomas the Zombie Tank Engine
- Upgrading the Pledge of Allegiance
- Why Preach Santaism?
8 comments:
Well said, Glen. I do not find Thaler's arguments convincing in the least.
Great job on the responses, Glen.
I agree with Glen on the smoking thing. And in general on most of the things he said, but not all.
I just got my Washington State license renewal notice.
There's a $5 "donation" to state parks that I have to deduct from the total in order to avoid paying.
This opt out gimmick was not a reasonable attempt to help people satisfy their actual preferences. It's a way to scam them out of money, and that's how I expect most uses of these techniques to be used.
I think the smoking argument unpacks back to the magical thinking about employment in general (a variation on the old and tired "just/fair prices")
Nazgulnarsil: Your comment makes no sense to me. What are you saying? What are you talking about?
I believe nazgulnarsil is saying that many people seem to think of employment as a kind of magic box: we can just ask employers to provide all kinds of things -- from higher wages to better benefits to better working conditions -- without any real trade-offs. This is magical thinking because in reality, there are always trade-offs. Higher benefits typically mean lower wages, for instance. Inasmuch as smoking bans constitute an improvement in work conditions, they presumably also have a downside in terms of reduced wages or other benefits. In a sense, the law is forcing bar and restaurant employees to buy something (better working conditions) even though they might prefer to have the money instead.
And thanks for the compliments on the Cato Unbound responses, everyone.
Post a Comment