Obesity remains a serious health problem and it is no secret that many people want to lose weight. Behavioral economists typically argue that “nudges” help individuals with various decisionmaking flaws to live longer, healthier, and better lives. In an article in the new issue of Regulation, Michael L. Marlow discusses how nudging by government differs from nudging by markets, and explains why market nudging is the more promising avenue for helping citizens to lose weight.
In Bootleggers & Baptists: How Economic Forces and Moral Persuasion Interact to Shape Regulatory Politics, economists Bruce Yandle and Adam Smith explain how money and morality are often combined in politics to produce arbitrary regulations benefiting cronies, while constraining productive economic activities by the general public.
Featuring Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute.
The recent Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life marks a change in direction in judicial doctrines concerning campaign finance. As recently as 2003, a majority of the Court upheld the strictures on free speech enacted in McCain-Feingold. In Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court forcefully stated that the benefit of the doubt lies with freedom of speech and not with the government. What will this decision mean for the 2008 campaign? How has the Court limited the power of Congress to regulate campaign finance and freedom of speech? Will we see a general deregulation of campaign finance compelled by judicial decisions over the next few years? Please join us to hear a leading congressional critic of restrictions on campaign spending and to discuss this vital judicial decision and its implications for Congress and national politics.