DISQUS

"Normally we don’t think of choice-eliminating helpfulness as a kind of helpfulness."

Who is "we" in this sentence? If it is libertarians, then obviously. If it is anyone in politics, then I heartily disagree: motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws, social security, etc. are all policies the creators/supporters of which deem helpful, and yet are choice-eliminating. And it is to exactly those in politics that T&S are appealing - those who would try to use paternalism in the well-worn sense that you've outlined above. And hey, combining an adjective with a noun to create something that means neither strictly the adjective nor the noun is called language (see "ant lion" or "compassionate conservative").

For someone so intent on accusing Thaler and Sunstein of not knowing how to use words, you completely elide an mention of the modifying adjective "libertarian" in Thaler and Sunstein's lexicon. The whole point is that "libertarian paternalism," as defined by them, is qualitatively different from paternalism's already extant "little box of meaning." And their point is that as choice architects, we cannot help constructing a choice that favors a particular outcome. Just because we are not conscious of it, does not mean we are not doing it. To that extent, we are unwitting practitioners of "libertarian paternalism," as were all the MP3 designers who made interfaces that weren't as usable as the iPod's; they just didn't know that they weren't that usable. And just because the term "choice architect" is broad, does not mean it isn't helpful. Yes, we are all at one time or another choice architects (as much for ourselves as for others), but we are also all consumers at one point or another, and that doesn't stop us from thinking about consumers and producers differently (and helpfully). Realizing that how we structure the choice may help us achieve what we wan't (we don't have to be libertarian paternalists here...we could be libertarian rent-seekers, in a perverse combination of T&S's vocabulary). You're not grinding a particularly useful axe here...and it is partly the behavioral economists' fault for appropriating the term "paternalist" and couching it in their modifiers, but just beware the knee-jerk opposition.

Also, pushmedia1, I agree with you that there are dynamic implications to making decisions for people, but it's already being done and right know what people think the "right" decision is really isn't (that is, the authors are pushing more for a change in the quality, not the quantity, of external choice architectures, since these architectures, whether we like them or not, are already there). Furthermore, recent psychological research points toward limited quantities of willpower and cognitive ability in a given day, suggesting that if people are currently subject to this willpower constraint, then an increase in the quantity of external choice architectures may actually increase the quality of internal choice architectures.

Well, "steady" seems like a bit of an overstatement (how about a bit more resolution with midterms?). And Obama wasn't necessarily claiming that the rural poor wouldn't vote Democratic (after all, "anti-trade sentiment" runs rampant in the Democratic party). And I'm not sure "poor" was as operative as "rural poor" in the "Bittergate" comment. I don't think he was comparing the rural poor to the rural rich as much as the rural poor to the urban poor (or one of his most supportive groups, the urban rich!). Lastly, he was talking about those who have had looooong unemployment spells, which isn't just the rural poor. It's an interesting and informative figure, but as far as claiming that it proves Obama not only made a major political error, but also a major factual one, that might be a little presumptuous.

"Philosophy majors frankly embarrass economics majors when it comes to the LSAT, I’m sorry to report."

With the link you sent, "embarrass" might be a little strong (156 versus 155.3; plus, just to play around with the data, I'd like to see standard deviations and philosophy/religion breakdowns (although the sample size is large enough that I would guess the difference is significant)). And unfortunately, no one will be more aware of the crushing ennui of serving one's life as an indentured servant to a vengeful legal system than a philosophically-trained lawyer.

P.S. With my economics major, I landed a 179, and the JD/PhD track can be quite lucrative.