How can government reduce the frequency and the severity of future catastrophes? Companies that have the potential to create significant harm must be required to pay for the costs they inflict, either before or after the fact. Economists agree on this general approach. The problem is in putting such a policy into effect.
Interpretation
Governments should make companies accountable for the harm they cause by ensuring they bear the costs of their actions.
Richard Thaler emphasizes the importance of holding companies responsible for the negative impacts they may have on society and the environment. By requiring these companies to pay for the consequences of their activities, governments can encourage safer practices and reduce the likelihood of future catastrophes. However, practical implementation of such policies presents significant challenges, despite broad consensus among economists on the approach.
In practice
During a public debate on environmental policies, one might use this quote to emphasize corporate responsibility.
The ability of businesses to monitor our behavior is already a fact of life, and it isn't going away. Of course we must protect our privacy rights. But if we're smart, we'll also use the data that is being collected to improve our own lives.
If you're trading individual securities, you're almost certainly making a mistake. Because most professional managers can't outperform their benchmarks, and there's little reason to think that individuals can.
When an economist says the evidence is "mixed," he or she means that theory says one thing and data says the opposite.
In the 1940s, economics started getting highly mathematical. It was basically because economists weren't smart enough to write down models of real behavior that they started writing down models of highly rational behavior - and they kind of forgot about humans.
Academia does not provide many opportunities for immediate gratification. You work for two years on a project, it takes two more years to get it published, and then you start hoping someone might read it.
In the world of traditional economics, it shouldn't matter whether you use an opt-in or opt-out system. So long as the costs of registering as a donor or a nondonor are low, the results should be similar. But many findings of behavioral economics show that tiny disparities in such rules can make a big difference.
Thus, the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up.
Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country.
You don't drive an economy by consuming - the consumer is not the engine, the consumer is the caboose.
Markets can influence the events that they anticipate.
The most insidious thing about trickle-down economics is not the claim that if the rich get richer, everyone is better off. It is the claim made by those who oppose any increase in the minimum wage that if the poor get richer, that will be bad for the economy. This is nonsense.
If I care about poverty, I have to care a lot about investments in the private sector. The private sector creates the vast majority of jobs in the world, and social protection only goes so far.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.