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 Harry de Gorter, Visiting Fellow, Cato Institute, and Professor, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University; Kate McMahon, Biofuels Campaign Coordinator, Friends of the Earth; moderated by Kurt Couchman, Manager of Government Affairs, Cato Institute.
As Congress debates extending biofuel tax credits and the ethanol import tariff, questions are being raised about the broader policy mix that includes subsidies, tariffs, mandates, and sustainability standards. As a recent CBO report revealed, some of these policies — the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) in particular — are quite expensive. Although biofuels were once hailed as a panacea to global warming and energy security while helping farmers and generating jobs, recent analysis has shown that some of these policies work contrary to such goals and negatively impact air and water quality, wildlife habitat, and food affordability as well. What does the evidence indicate about energy security and green jobs creation claims? Are there any compelling reasons to subsidize biofuels, or should policymakers simply eliminate such preferences?