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 Anders Aslund, Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics; and Desmond Lachman, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; moderated by Marian L. Tupy, Policy Analyst, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
In his new book, The Last Shall Be the First, Anders Aslund argues that the governments of the Baltic countries were right to respond to the 2008 financial crisis by slashing spending, while maintaining a fully fixed exchange rate between their domestic currencies and the euro. According to Aslund, this “internal devaluation” allowed the Baltics to quickly return to growth. Desmond Lachman contends that the sharp decline in the GDP in the Baltics in 2009 would not have happened if, instead of austerity measures, the Baltic governments had abandoned fixed exchange rates in favor of currency devaluation. Which of these two approaches is correct — and does the solution of the crisis in the Baltic countries hold any lessons for the United States and the European Union? Please join us for a spirited discussion.