This approach probably mirrors my own beliefs on how governments should craft economic policies, although it doesn\u2019t appear to be in favor with either major party right now. For example, trans fats are pretty clearly bad for your health, and if Americans consume too many trans fats, national expenditures on health care will likely rise as more Americans succumb to heart disease and possibly cancer as well. However, banning trans fats, as New York City has done, is paternalism without liberty – these jurisdictions have decided for consumers that they can\u2019t be trusted to consume only small, safer amounts of trans fats. You can certainly have tiny amounts of trans fats without significantly altering your risk of heart disease, and you may decide for yourself that the small increase in health risk is justified by the improved flavor or texture of products containing trans fats. (For example, pie crusts made with traditional shortening have a better texture than those made with new, trans fat-free shortening. And don\u2019t get me started on Oreos.) That\u2019s your choice to make, even if it potentially harms your health in the long run.<\/p>\n
Thaler and Sunstein fry bigger fish than neonata in Nudge<\/em>, examining how choice architecture might improve employee participation in and choices within their retirement accounts, increase participation in organ donation programs, or increase energy conservation. (The last one is almost funny: If you tell people their neighbors are better at conserving energy, then it makes those people reduce their own energy use. South Africa has been using this and similar techniques to try to reduce water consumption in drought-stricken Cape Town. Unfortunately, publicizing “Day Zero” has also hurt the city’s tourism industry<\/a>.) Thaler distinguishes between Econs, the theoretical, entirely rational actors of traditional economic theory; and Humans, the very real, often irrational people who live in this universe and make inefficient or even dumb choices all the time. <\/p>\n Nudge<\/em> is enlightening, but unlike most books in this niche, like Thinking, Fast and Slow<\/a><\/em> or The Invisible Gorilla<\/a><\/em>, it probably won\u2019t help you make better choices in your own life. You can become more aware of choice architecture, and maybe you\u2019ll overrule your status quo bias, or will look at the top or bottom shelves in the supermarket instead of what\u2019s at eye level (hint: the retailer charges producers more to place their products at eye level), but the people Nudge<\/em> is most likely to help seem like the ones least likely to read it: Elected and appointed officials. I\u2019ve mentioned many times how disgusted I was with Arizona\u2019s lack of any kind of energy or water conservation policies. They have more sun than almost any place in the country, but have done little to nothing to encourage solar uptake, although the state\u2019s utility commission may have finally forced some change<\/a> on the renewable energy front this week. Las Vegas actually pays residents to remove grass lawns and replace them with low-water landscaping; Arizona does nothing of the sort, and charges far too little for water given its scarcity and dwindling supply. Improving choice architecture in that state could improve its environmental policies quickly without infringing on Arizonans\u2019 rights to leave the lights on all night.<\/p>\n Speaking of Thinking, Fast and Slow<\/em>, its author, Daniel Kahneman, was a guest last week on NPR’s Hidden Brain podcast<\/a>, and it was both entertaining and illuminating.<\/p>\n![](\"\/\/ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com\/widgets\/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=014311526X&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=meadowpartyco-20\")