<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nudge</title>
	<atom:link href="http://truthonthemarket.com/2008/04/18/nudge/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2008/04/18/nudge/</link>
	<description>Academic commentary on law, business, economics and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 02:37:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: KipEsquire</title>
		<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2008/04/18/nudge/#comment-7237</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[KipEsquire]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:12:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2008/04/18/nudge/#comment-7237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NYU economist Mario Rizzo has just &lt;a href=&quot;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1119325&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;posted on SSRN&lt;/a&gt; a draft paper with a detailed debunking of &lt;i&gt;Nudged&lt;/i&gt;:&lt;blockquote&gt;The &quot;new paternalism&quot; claims that careful policy interventions can help
people make better decisions in terms of their own welfare, with only mild or nonexistent infringement of personal autonomy and choice. This claim to moderation is not sustainable. Applying the insights of the modern literature on slippery slopes to new paternalist policies suggests that such policies are particularly vulnerable to expansion. This is true even if policymakers are fully rational. More importantly, the slippery-slope potential is especially great if policymakers are not fully rational, but instead share the behavioral and cognitive biases attributed to the people their policies are supposed to help. Accepting the new paternalist approach creates a risk of accepting, in the long run, greater restrictions on individual autonomy than have been heretofore acknowledged.&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NYU economist Mario Rizzo has just <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1119325" rel="nofollow">posted on SSRN</a> a draft paper with a detailed debunking of <i>Nudged</i>:<br />
<blockquote>The &#8220;new paternalism&#8221; claims that careful policy interventions can help<br />
people make better decisions in terms of their own welfare, with only mild or nonexistent infringement of personal autonomy and choice. This claim to moderation is not sustainable. Applying the insights of the modern literature on slippery slopes to new paternalist policies suggests that such policies are particularly vulnerable to expansion. This is true even if policymakers are fully rational. More importantly, the slippery-slope potential is especially great if policymakers are not fully rational, but instead share the behavioral and cognitive biases attributed to the people their policies are supposed to help. Accepting the new paternalist approach creates a risk of accepting, in the long run, greater restrictions on individual autonomy than have been heretofore acknowledged.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

