Irrationality all the way down, and worse than just leaving folks be, I’d say…..

“On another note, as a first time commenter I was surprised that there was such a lag while moderation took place”

Fair enough. Moderation is done manually, so times vary strongly. There are many many spam comments to sort through – and the spam filter appears to block comments almost at random.

I have also been away from the blog quite a bit – I prefer to reply to comments fairly regularly but haven’t had the opportunity over the past couple of months (between being away and my internet at home not working).

I think @rauparaha has done a good job of indicating why the baby shouldn’t be thrown out with the bath water there.

On another note, as a first time commenter I was suprised that there was such a lag while moderation took place. Can you advance an economic arguement to support that? I would have thought the marketplace of ideas would be sufficent to sort things out.

Indeed. The main difference with nudging and direct regulation is that at least you have verifiable choice – which implies that we have some additional idea regarding whether the policy is good or not.

@rauparaha

I agree, systematic biases often require an institution to improve outcomes – such as government. And if that case is made, that is nice.

My issue here is when people just say “irrationality” and then sell their pet intervention 😉

Intervening because of ‘irrationality’ is and will always be paternalist in some way shape or form. It requires the government to advance the position that it knows better than its citizens. So the sorts of questions you pose about savings aren’t, I would say, fundamentally different than those that might be asked when the government passes usury laws or bans party pills or poligamy or anything else.

I think the idea that individuals can look after themselves better than the government can is a good starting point – and note that’s different from assuming individuals are rational (cos they’re not). But that’s a rebuttable presumption.

I’m not sufficently familiar with the issue of savings to make a call as to whether it meets this test. But the other thing I would say is that government intervention need not necessarily amount to compulsion. Some might say that the opt-out Kiwisaver arrangements are basically cut from the same cloth, but you can envisage interventions even lighter – compulsory financial education of some kind, a mandatory choice (rather than opt out) when signing for a new job (like having to fill in your tax code)…