Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
Healthcare Economics Critique · Acedra
Home
Explore
Economics
Healthcare Economics Critique
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
153 segments
Copy
Hide video
0:00
We are papering over a broken system with nudges when we have to shove ourselves into what makes the most sense for health care which is which every other developed country in the world has already realized which is free market incentives don't work in a system with those kinds of externalities. Healthcare is not will never be a functioning market. And the system is designed to exploit people's need to not die. And by creating the ACA and all those other things, we're papering over what should
0:37
be the reality of the system, which is centralizing it is the only way to create something uh that will efficiently uh uh help people not die. that that's that's where I would crystallize my argument in in all of this. >> Right. And obviously we're going to have no listeners left if we if we >> who we don't have
1:09
Hey everybody, welcome once again to the weekly show podcast with John Stewart. My name is John Stewart and we're going to be talking. You know, this has been I feel like the news of the world has so matched uh the the climate here in the Northeast, which is dark and gray and apocalyptic. And this feeling that we are hurtling towards something just truly unimaginable and and inexplicable. And it's why today I just don't even want to [ __ ] deal with it right now.
1:38
I you know, in in all these different ways, today's show is going to be uh slightly different. where once again every now and again we'd love to bring on uh experts uh people of such regard and and note uh to come and play with me uh like uh let's say a person with a cat like a little string toy uh me being of course uh the cat those uh individuals being the person and and today we want to talk about you know our ability as a country to fix the seemingly intractable
2:13
systemic problems, more economic. And who better to do that with than an economist and an economist that uh has in some ways changed the way that uh economists talk about uh the incentives that go into our economy. Uh he is a behavioral economist, which is something I didn't even know uh that there was. uh but a a a brilliant thinker and another in our continuing series of of uh brilliant thinkers. We obviously had Jeffrey Hinton on who explained to me in childlike terms uh what AI actually is
2:49
and I'm I'm sure this guest will will be no different. Uh so I'm excited to get to it. Let's let's jump in now. Richard Thaylor. Ladies and gentlemen, uh in our ongoing efforts to entertain and educate, uh we once again are going to welcome somebody to the program who is so uh accomplished and smart uh that it'll be entertaining to watch him play with me uh like a monkey with a small grape. That's right. Uh our our guest today, a professor from the University of Chicago, an American
3:28
economist, the founding father, one of the founding fathers of behavioral economics, and awarded a Nobel Prize in econ, which I assume uh he will be giving to Donald Trump because that's where uh everybody has to give their their Nobel prizes. But please, Richard Thaylor, thank you for joining us today. >> It's a pleasure, John. And uh I I was thinking of offering you the prize. >> Well, it's very kind of you, sir. I could never I I don't have enough space on my wall. I've got so many peace
4:01
prizes up there. >> It's pretty small. You know, the >> the prize itself. >> Yeah. But uh the one I've offered to Trump is bigger. But uh smart. That's totally smart move on your part. That's why you're the behavioral uh economist, which by the way, sir, what a fantastic segue. uh to get into this most people think of econom uh uh economists as macroeconomists, microeconomists. Then there's this idea you you sort of created this field called behavioral uh economics. So if you could just very
4:35
briefly and I apologize for the remedial nature of it. What what is behavioral economics? How does it differ from what we consider to be kind of traditional economics and and how did you even think of it? >> Yeah. So, I'll I'll use one fancy word you may not know, which is pleonazm. Pleonazm. >> Wait, what? >> Pleonazm. >> Wow. >> So, there's a guy smarter than me named Herb Simon who wrote a definition of behavioral economics and said, "The phrase seems like a pleonaz." What is
5:10
that? A redundant phrase. Meaning, what other kind of economics could there be? Presumably economics is about the behavior of people in markets. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Right. So why do we need that? Well, the reason we need that is standard economics leaves out the people. They're all about the markets. And then there are firms and workers and governments and countries and consumers. There are no people. You you pick up a big economics textbook, you'll not see the word people.
5:57
There are agents. And these agents are they're kind of like Spock in the old Star Trek series. super >> logical, >> very logical >> and uh maximizing. >> They're as smart as the smartest economist. So when when economists make a model in in terms of how a market is going to behave, the assumptions that they make are that the people that make up the model are logical, rational and will and will behave in the manner that is is maximizes value in the in the model. Would that be right? Yes. And and
6:42
they do that in part because that's the easiest kind of model to write down. >> It works out simple, >> right? I mean, suppose you tried to write down a model of John wandering through Costco, >> okay? >> Choosing the optimal stuff to put in a basket, right? I mean, no one can solve that problem. It's too hard. So you you simplify the modeling task >> by saying okay he's going to choose the best bundle and that you the math is easy and then they add to that an assumption that people are selfish
7:23
jerks. >> Well I mean you know I don't want to I don't want to say anything but uh that that seems like a relatively >> simple assumption. >> Yeah. Okay. So anyway the idea is well what if we introduce some people because there are people run firms people interact in markets in fact more and more people are interacting in markets every which way you can right you can bet on anything now but how would that how would that manifest so if I if I'm an economist and I want to make a model
7:59
about and and I assume they model uh what would be the the most efficient market for cereal and they want to model how you would create that. How would introducing uh what what you're suggesting change >> economic modeling which I assume means you would be changing how policy is created because policy I would assume then is downstream >> right >> from economic modeling >> right good >> okay >> so let's start with a simple experiment >> please >> we go into a classroom I actually brought a prop
8:38
>> what >> a mug what are you carrot top what are we doing here? >> Yeah, >> you're a professor. >> I got a mug here. >> All right. >> Now, uh, so what we did was >> we go into a classroom and we put a mug. I was teaching at Cornell at the time. So, it was a Cornell insignia >> safety school. Let's let's just point out very quickly safety school. All right. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh, w and sir sir, we don't have time for this. >> Okay. No slurs. So, Cornell is a very
9:08
fine school. Yes. Uh so uh every other student has a mug sitting in front of them. >> Okay. >> And uh their neighbor doesn't get a mug. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now we have a market for the mugs. And we say if you have a mug, John, you can sell it. Here's a price list. If it's $10, will you sell it or keep it? 950. And then you go down until Okay, I'll sell at 8, but I won't at 750. >> Okay. >> All right. And then the guy sitting next to you doesn't have a mug. He has a price list.
9:45
At each of the following prices, will you buy? Okay. >> Yes. >> So, half the people are buyers, half of them are potential sellers. >> Okay. >> So, uh their worth will be determined in this market. Now, what does economic theory say? It says the value you put on that mug should not depend on whether it's sitting right in front of you or on the desk next to you. Well, it turns out it it so the mugs are distributed at random. What we should see is let's rank the people from highest to
10:28
lowest on how much they like that one of those mugs. Mhm. >> The half that like mugs the most should end up with them. >> Yes. That's what traditional economics would tell you, >> right? >> Okay. >> So, about half the mugs should change hands. >> Oh, they're saying that uh they're assuming that there is a rationality to people's affection for the mugs. Uh well that that it doesn't depend on >> or randomized >> that we did randomize. >> Okay. >> Right. That they were handed out at random.
11:03
>> Yeah. >> And the assumption is that the value you put on that mug shouldn't depend on whether it's sitting directly in front of you or adjacent to you or in other words whether you now own it. And that will be the key phrase and we'll come back to that. >> Right. Okay. >> You do realize I am failing this class right now. >> No, John, >> I am lost. >> You're you're doing great. You know, all right. >> You know, you know, at current grade levels. >> Yes, sir. >> A++.
11:39
>> Oh, that's very kind of you, sir. In the class, do I have a mug? >> Uh, you know, you can buy one. >> All right. >> All right. >> I didn't get a mug. Fair enough. Okay. So, what happens? The people who have the mugs really don't want to sell them. The people who don't have mugs aren't all that interested in buying one. There's no market. There is a market, but the people who have a mug demand about twice as much to give it up as the ones who don't have a mug are willing to buy it.
12:17
So instead of half the mugs trading, uh, we got about 20%. So what's the lesson? You know this old Steven Sills song, uh, Love the One You're With Sure. That's I call this the endowment effect that if you're endowed with something, you want to keep it. You won't give it up. But you don't have it. uh you know, okay, if the price is right, I'll buy it. This is a phenomena we call loss aversion that if you have something, you're going to fight like hell to keep it. If you don't have it, me, it's a
13:04
mug. You know, the mug experiment is the genesis of behavioral economics, if I can sum this up, because traditional economics would say uh half the mugs would change hands based on uh value and markets and and how they should operate in terms of people that have something and people that don't and people that want it. But what you found is only 20% changed hands because of behavioral tendencies that were not included in the model. Correct. A+. Come on, brother.
13:44
Uh I'm going to give you guys a little insight into uh who I am as an individual. There's nothing that I enjoy more than uh what I like to call a little uh breakfast for dinner. Now, breakfast for dinner, it's it's a a treat. It it takes me back to the childhood when you felt like remember to get breakfast for dinner and you were like we're breaking all the rules. What? Scrambled eggs. Where am I? What world is this? Magic spoon. It gives you that feeling. Saturday morning cereal. Well,
14:10
you get their uh 13 grams of protein, zero sugar, 5 g of net carbs per serving, which is how I always chose my cereals when I was younger. I used to say to my mother growing up, how many what's my what's my net carbs here? Five grams, seven grams. What are we What are we dealing with? How much protein in this bowl of uh chocolate Dracula cereal? That's right. Count Dracula. Man, did I eat like crap? But this stuff, Magic Spoon, keeps you fueled. Whether it's breakfast, late night
14:42
snack, post-workout, whatever it is, Magic Spoon. Look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or at your nearest grocery store. There are plantbased versions of the cereal as well, even vegans. Could you feel like they had a chow? You'll find vegan options at Whole Foods. Or get $5 off your next order at magixpoon.com/tws. That's magixpoon.com/tws for $5 off. So this all sounds, if I may, insane to me because there could be somebody who is like >> called me worse. >> Mug fetishes. But uh the idea that
15:24
economics don't take into account because buy low, sell high takes into account greed. It takes into account you're you're trying to get value. It seems like basic economics does, you know. >> Well, here let me Yeah. Let me give you an example. Yes. Suppose that your uncle uh gives you an inheritance. >> Sentimental. Is it a mug or is it something different? >> It's like a thousand shares of some stock. >> Okay. But my uncle gave it to me. >> Your uncle gave it to you. >> All right.
15:56
>> So you you send it over to your wealth manager or broker or whatever. >> All right. The thousand shares I got from my uncle. >> Yeah. And then the question is, do you keep them? Let's ignore taxes. >> Okay. Do I keep the shares or do I sell them? >> Or do or do you put them into a index fund? >> Okay. >> Economic theory would say the fact that you if there are no tax issues, the fact you got those shares from your uncle, you if you wouldn't have owned a thousand shares of that company before,
16:35
you shouldn't now. Just put it in with all the other stuff. >> Don't do anything with it. >> Don't No, you should. >> No, not just keep it. >> Oh, >> diversify the way you would everything else. So those thousand shares should be turned into some should be in higher risk, some should be in uh medium risk, some should be in fixed income. I should split that up in the manner that I would split up uh any asset that I have. Exactly. >> That's that's what standard economic theory would say. >> Right.
17:11
>> Standard economic theory says the best thing I would do the the uh is to do that. But behavioral economics says I won't do that for a variety of reasons. Uh, one being maybe I'm lazy. Two being maybe I have sentimental value to my uncle and therefore those thousand shares are the only thing I have to to remember him by. Apparently I didn't take any pictures. I just have this thousand share inherited. So I'm I'm not going to do that. And so, uh, standard
17:44
economics misses all those externalities that are part of the human condition and therefore their models suck. >> Uh, well, we'll not make a value judge. >> Tooar, too. Too projorative. >> Too porative. Uh Lee, you can say that, but let let me just add that notice one result of this experiment is people have a tendency to just stick with what they have. >> So if they got a mug, they're much more likely to end up with it than if they didn't get a mug. Okay, I see. Okay.
18:20
Okay. Possession 9/10en of the law. So and and standard economics doesn't take in possession. And and how far would this possession theory skew economic models if they don't take it into account? For instance, I have a house. So, uh the theory of economics would be I will continue to try and uh uh get better, more valuable housing or uh divers rather than just holding it since I have. >> Yeah. And it's that particular house. So, we call this status quo bias. Okay.
18:58
>> That do people have a tendency to just stick with what they have? >> Yes. A body at rest tends to stay at rest. >> Exactly. >> Right. Do they really not take this into account in standard economics? That seems insane to me. Like is that really something they don't they don't consider? >> They would consider it if there's transaction costs. So, but in the stock example, there are none, right? it would the the cost of changing a thousand shares of Google into uh a thousand
19:34
uh the put that money into an index fund will cost you $10, right? So the if it was an offer to buy your house then there would be costs to moving and >> yeah it's a pain in the ass, >> right? But for for most things uh the economist would assume that because the cost of switching things around is low uh we can ignore it. So how does this manifest in in markets? Because I want to I want the the reason why I want to talk about this and I'll I'll give the broader example is you know things like
20:15
climate policy or the ACA or those kinds of things. These are solutions to because economics is in some ways it's it's the lubricant that we use to create solutions to problems or uh uh you know uh better conditions for people's lives uh and and how that affects all that and I think the premise here is that standard economics misses and so the solutions that we design for the problems in our lives are illconceived. >> Great. So, let's take climate change as an example. >> Great.
20:54
>> All economists, including this one, think that the first thing we should have done when we figured out there was climate change is impose a carbon tax. >> That Wait, most economists think that? >> Yes. May I May I suggest that that's incorrect? Uh, you may, but I I'm included in those. >> Can I say why I think it's incorrect? >> Yeah, sure. >> So, the minute you put a carbon tax on, people see their energy prices go up and you will no longer be serving in office politically.
21:30
>> All right. Then we're in agreement. What what I'm saying is if >> Yeah. if you're God or king uh you know or president >> and and you could say all right what policy should we have >> then the correct policy is the one that sets the prices to give people the incentive >> okay >> to so if if we increase the cost of heating your home >> yes >> to reflect the externality the co the cost you're imposing on other people. >> Yes. >> Then you'll have the correct incentives
22:11
to put in solar or insulate or switch to a heat pump or whatever. >> Right. >> We run a poll of expert economists every couple weeks at the University of Chicago and there is one on that and yeah, everybody says, "Yeah, that would be the ideal policy." So they're saying a a carbon tax would be the thing to solve the climate crisis because uh rather than changing the behavior, you have to make using fossil fuels which are the driver of climate change so much more expensive that it changes
22:49
people's behaviors because they won't change behavior on their own. Is that standard economics or is that behavioral economics? >> No, that's standard economics. >> That's standard. That's standard. >> Feels behavioral, but that's standard. >> No, because it's standard because it's just changed the price. And then it's the alternative is we say you you're not allowed to have uh we can't have cars that uh get less than such and such gas mileage right? >> We >> which we've done.
23:23
>> We have Right. So we have lots of regulations. >> Okay. we essentially don't have a carbon tax. >> So the way we do it is so standard economics what they say is uh we have a series of either incentives or regulations. So it would sort of be a mix of subsidies and regulations and that is how we will manage the energy market while also keeping an eye on trying to reduce emissions and that's how economists would design a program to solve it. So, we've done that with we subsidize solar,
24:03
we subsidize electric vehicles, uh, and we regulate the miles that they must get there, and they must have a catalytic converter. >> All that is what you would consider to be standard economic theory. >> No. No. So, we're almost there. >> I am [ __ ] this up. >> You are not. You're not. So what economists would say is we don't need all those rules and regulations. Just set the price, right? >> But doesn't the market set the price? Doesn't Isn't that free market? >> No. No. The carbon tax will
24:42
automatically raise the price of a Hummer of operating a Hummer because it only gets 8 miles to the gallon compared to some EV. So we don't have to regulate. All we have to do is get the price right. That's standard economics. >> And then the market will change. >> Then the market will change. But isn't that just an intervention? Isn't how is that a market? That's just the government saying if we set a price that is unreasonable, the market will behave. It's just setting the price so that you
25:18
have the incentive to act in a way that's best for society. But that's not economics. Economics doesn't take into account what's best for society. It takes >> Yes, it does. Yes, it does. >> Wait a minute. >> Wait a minute. I'm Well, let me >> hold on here. Economists know about externalities. And now here's the point I want to make. We don't have carbon taxes. Why? Because and you started with this or you got to the answer right away. You got to this because people hate taxes. They
26:03
hate high prices. So what do we have? We have lots of subsidies. We have no taxes. >> Yes. Well, we have that's that's not exactly I mean we have gas taxes. Like if you go to California, it's very different than buying gas in in New York. Very different than buying gas in Minnesota or you know. That's that's that's right. But even in high gasoline tax states, >> the taxes on emissions are still way too low uh compared to what they should be compared to what they should be if our
26:40
goal is to reduce carbon emissions, right? >> But that's not the goal of economics. The goal of economics in a capitalist system is to make the most amount of money for your shareholders. So my point is since when is economics about improving the human condition and not just making money for the companies that are extracting the fossil fuels from the earth, isn't that everything else is interventionist? >> Okay. So I ne I did not anticipate that my role here was going to be as the
27:14
defender of neocclassical economics, but here I am. Oh, we're here, baby. >> I am here. And you know, my economist friends will be proud that I'm defending them. >> All right. Uh, so look, there's an an economist named Arthur Pigu. >> Oh, Pigu's work is I'd never I don't miss an essay. >> Yeah. So, no, he's died a hundred years ago, but that's what I meant. Anyway, he he there are piguvian taxes. So in any economics textbook it will say >> that if you're causing some harm
27:59
then the way to fix it is to charge you for the harm you're causing so that you will decide just the the right amount of harm. Is Puvian familiar with the 2008 financial crisis? because that is not what happens. >> Okay, I'm not saying any economist thinks that we have these optimal policies. What what I'm saying is that's how it's supposed to work. That's the way any economist basically would have advised, you know, take any council of economic advisors before this one
28:45
because they always had real economists. They would all be saying something similar to, "Well, what we really should do is this." But then they would say, "But it's true, boss, that people hate taxes." And if they're Republicans, they really hate taxes, but we all hate paying taxes. And so we'll do we'll subsidize EVs. We won't tax Hummers. and we won't tax gas and we won't tax ad. So, and that all goes back to the mugs that it's because we hate losing more than we like winning.
29:32
So, what we'll do is we'll have all these policies where we subsidize you to do the right thing as opposed to penalizing you via prices for doing the wrong thing. Folks, you love coffee, but you think the names are lame. Sanka Maxwell House lame. I don't want to drink I don't want to drink somebody's house. Well, this episode's brought to you by Ninja Lux Cafe. That's an espresso maker that's bringing your favorite coffee shop into your home and it has a cool name so you can feel decent about
30:12
drinking it. This Ninja Lux Cafe espresso machine, it gives you the quality brew, but then without having to give the barista your name and then have them read it dripping with contempt. Maybe you're a latte guy, latte gal, I don't know. I'm going to finish it with fancy microphone. They got that, too. Barista Assist technology handles the details. Grinding, weighing, brewing. You don't have to. Ninja Lux Cafe makes cafe quality without the guest work and without the drive to your coffee shop.
30:45
Listeners of this show get $60 off the Ninjalux Cafe premiere series with code Stewart exclusively on sharkninja.com while supplies last. That's $60 off the Ninjalux Cafe Premiere Series with Coach Stewart exclusively on sharkninja.com. Wild supplies. So, this is the problem I think that that we get to then with economics because let let's say we'll bring it back to uh climate policy. What what I'm suggesting is all markets are designed to some extent. We sort of have this
31:25
fiction that we live in a free market where it's only the rules of supply and demand and that our policies have to uh you know basically give way to these market forces that if left to their own devices will solve these what I'm getting at is government intervention in markets is seen as uh a negative and paternalistic anti- capitalist uh movement. where mucky mucks and elites design systems that are not as efficient and functioning as capitalist markets. But
32:04
we all know that that's a fiction that we intervene in markets all the you know the the big thing is always the government's not supposed to pick winners and losers. But they do it all the time and they've done it since time immemorial as governments. >> There are two different issues here. Putting a tax on a bad like pollution isn't interfering with markets. It's it's making the market efficient in the sense that the price people are paying reflects the cost they impose on
32:39
others. And it's not picking winners and losers. It's picking there will be losers. People who like to drive gas guzzling cars will lose, but we're not aiming it at them. It's a free choice. No, they they won't lose because let's say that's because they have the money to burn. It doesn't affect them. In other words, the the downstream cost of the pollution that they create won't affect them because they are buffeted either by geography or wealth. So that the tax
33:18
itself is no. But look, let's think of what we did. What did we do? We subsidized EVs. And who was the beneficiary of that? Mostly rich guys, >> right? But we also, the EPA regulated what you could put out into the environment. I mean, that's how we got cleaner air when the government regulated what you could actually do. That's true. But the choice to have subsidies and regulations, it benefited some companies versus others. I mean, Tesla was a big beneficiary of this. Exactly. No, I'm
34:02
saying government always picks winners and losers and then pretends like that's something that they can't do. Like Donald Trump's a great example. He's like, "Government can't pick winners and losers." Oh, Nvidia, I'll let you sell chips to China if you give me or Intel. How about this? I'll take 10% of your company. Like, I guess what I'm saying is, aren't we all operating under a fiction? And if we were more if we were more honest about the way economies worked, we could be more honest about
34:32
the way we solve some of these larger scale problems. >> So I I think Okay, you're skipping one step ahead. >> I don't want to do that. Take me back. Take me back >> in in a world where we don't know any of the people in any of the companies. So we're back in the world of inside an economist's head. >> Oh boy. We just have there are firms and there are people and there's some thing people are doing that causes harm to others. The solution to that that all economists agree to is
35:09
put a price on that bad and then let the market clear and some the people who produce bads will suffer and if they're poor they'll suffer more. But that's true of all policies. That part is uncontroversial. Um I I I'm not saying that's a world we live in. In fact, my point is Sweden. So economists don't live in the world that we live in. No. No. They would call this a first best. Meaning if they could design everything, that's the way they would do it. They would try to make the prices
35:53
reflect the harms that are people causing and then let the chips fall where they may. That's very different from uh giving contracts to your buddies. um which you know has been going on at the local level as long as there have been politicians and buddies. Um we've just taken it to new levels. Is the idea behavioral e economics to help e economists get more grounded in what the actual externalities are? Is that the point? Because the way you're describing economists and and the way that they
36:39
talk about the economy seems utterly removed from from reality to some extent. >> No. No. Okay. So, here here's the worst student you have ever had. >> Oh, John, you are so far from that. These are very good questions. All right, let's get to it. All right. So, the point I want to start with is economists don't have a good answer to the question, why do we have only subsidies rather than taxes? >> Mhm. >> Because as far as economists are concerned, they're the same. It's just a
37:20
sign. I if we subsidize the good thing or tax the bad thing uh you know if there are red mugs and blue mugs and the red mugs >> in their model they see no distinction between a subsidy and a tax. And what you're saying is a tax is actually much worse than a subsidy in real world economics because people view losses as more damaging than wins, which is the subsidy. >> Perfect. You nailed it. >> All right. So if we're trying to understand the world, it's important to understand
38:00
this thing about losses and about status quo bias that that people tend to stick with what they have and we can use that to help or hurt people. So how would you taking behavioral economics staying with the the the climate model if an economist would say it really makes no difference whether you do a tax or a subsidy but very clearly we only do subsidies so somebody must understand the political realities of all this. We've understood since the 70s that uh the world is
38:37
warming through our climate policies. They've had coyoto treaties and giant conferences every year where everybody flies private jets to discuss how we're going to change fossil fuels and they all work through subsidies and caps and cap and trade and net neutrality and all these different goals and things and nothing has really changed. We've made certainly advances in solar and wind and batteries and EVs, but the energy needs of the world continue to spiral. And AI
39:14
and my my point is everything we've done has been utterly inadequate. And I guess I'm trying to figure out what are we misunderstanding about the solutions and how can behavioral economics give us a better angle on it than the standard economics which have the standard economics and the standard political realities which have failed us. >> God almost 20 years ago I wrote a book with Cass Sunstein called Nudge. >> Yes, I I remember Nudge. It was a book about how we can help
39:54
in this kind of situation. And so here's one one example. All right, we're in this world where gas guzzling cars are too cheap and we'd like we all would like to put a tax on that, but we can't. Well, one thing we can do is we can put labels on the cars telling you how much it's going to cost you to operate this car. Well, that will help a little. Like a like a food labeling will help you with with health. And uh if people see like, oh, this car is going to cost me $6,000
40:33
a year to buy gas for this other car is going to cost me $3,000 a year to buy gas for. That's a piece of information that will help me make a decision. And that decision we think will also be better for the environment. >> Right. >> And so and so those are little things, nudges that move us in the right direction, >> right? Another example is you probably get a utility bill. >> Yeah. >> That I'm guessing you personally don't look at. >> Oh, I look at it every day.
41:01
>> That tells you how much energy you use compared to your neighbors with a similar house. Ooh, you're going with shame. Shame. You're going with b economic benefit and then also shame. >> Well, shame and no and patting on the back. >> Ah, >> right. If if if you've put in solar or a heat pump, >> all right, >> you're Oh, John, most guys with McMansions like yours, you are misunderstanding my neighborhood, sir. They would in no way. They'd be like, "What are you a
41:43
[ __ ] What are you doing over there?" Okay, so in any case, my co-author Cass Sunstein was the so-called regulation zar for President Obama for a while, and his job was to make sure all the regulations that were being passed did more good than bad. a series of nudges that would incentivize people through a variety of psychological some would say manipulations but but understanding that that could drive our economy incrementally to a more positive climate future. Let me ask you a question.
42:23
>> Yeah. >> Are we in a nudge economy or should you write a book called shove? because you know it feels like the incentives and subsidy taxes are all inadequate to address the reality of people's behavior and and >> the totality of what we face. Why aren't we redesigning the entire systems? Go ahead. >> So Nudge has two sets of critics. One would you could think of as complete free market guys that's saying go away let markets do it. >> Yeah. But they live in La La Land.
43:05
>> Yeah. Then there are the others who saying come on we have to tell people what to do. So show you want me to my next book should be called shove. >> Yes. >> Let let me Yeah. you go ahead and then I'll explain why I think I'm different than those two. But go ahead. >> Okay. And I would just say and there's at least one one of my colleagues has written such a book and I will point out to that person and you >> Yeah. >> that if we're in that world sometimes Trump is president.
43:46
So if we want to design a system where the government just tells us what to do as opposed to nudge us, wouldn't that be worse? >> Well, first of all, the government tells us what to do all the time. I mean, any any regulation and all those kinds of things. So, you know, it's >> you're you saying we should >> shove we should shove. >> Let me explain what I'm saying. >> All right, do it. So when I say shove, I don't mean the government saying to people you are not allowed to use this
44:16
much electricity or you are not allowed to use this much uh gas. Uh do that. When I say shove, it means understanding what the 10,000 years of, you know, human uh uh endeavor and progress on this earth really means. We are a species that if shit's easier, we will do it that way. like the horse didn't go by the wayside of the car because, you know, of anything other than like, wait a minute, I can get there in half the time and not have the smell of horseshit. Done. Like, we are incentivized to
44:56
you've given me a product that makes my life easier. We don't care where the electricity comes from. When I say shove, it's this. It's stop thinking incrementally about the subsidies and the thing people want the convenience that modern life has provided them whether they live in the global south or whether they live in our thing and shove means these incremental systems and with all its political peril and all those things aren't what's actually going to solve the problem.
45:27
Shove means looking at mitigating the damage that human beings in all their greed and convenience uh need. In other words, shove is not telling people what to do. It's getting scientists to help us clean up this mess. meaning uh carbon capture or other types of uh models. Because what you won't be able to do through a series of nudges is make people not want the most efficient, convenient, cheapest thing that they can possibly get. And anything that doesn't take that into account is
46:11
naive. So, I'm not suggesting a paternalistic government that decides, oh my god, climate change is and we've got to be better people and how do we incentivize everyone to be better people? I don't think you I mean, my view is you can't. You actually need to think completely differently and create a model that creates robust markets in damage mitigation and carbon mitigation. That's my that's my position. Okay. But I what I would say is that position is identical
46:55
to the one that you mocked. Whoa. Whoa. And the standard economic prescription which is set the prices right and then people will have all the incentive to invent the new technologies to solve it. If the if the carbon prices are right then people are going to pour all kinds of money. >> That's only one way of doing it though. That's setting the carbon price is not necessarily the only way to do it. The other way to do it is create a market for mitigation. That that's what I'm saying. It's not
47:38
just about carbon. Yeah. You you there will be a market for mitigation. >> Yes. >> But if if it doesn't cost you much to emit carbon, then people won't buy it. >> No, it's not that people will buy it. It's that you need uh you need to create a market for profit for for companies, not people. >> That that John, am I am I nuts? >> Uh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You know what's interesting about the avocado? Uh and I've never really thought about this. When you cut it
48:20
open, you get that perfect little scoop with the little indentation. Have you ever thought to yourself, I bet that's comfortable to sleep in? Almost looks like a body shape where you could just lie there. And that's the genius of our uh uh sponsors. Avocado green mattress. They've taken the beauty of the the restful beauty of the inside of an avocado and turned it into a mattress. It's not made of avocados. Obviously, that thing would spoil. God, 30 seconds. But it's
48:52
called Avagado Green Mattress. They sell mattresses, pillows, solid wood furniture. What more do you need? And no pits. It's all made from materials designed to support healthier living and more restorative sleep. Made without the harmful chemicals. Can actual avocado say that? Probably not. They only use certified organic non-toxic materials. They even have sleep trials, you know, of up to a year to make sure you get the best mattress for you. Avocado green mattress. It is.
49:21
Uh, it's brilliant. Avocado. Dream of better. And now they're having a great sale on mattresses. Go to avocado greenmattress.com/tws to get up to 15% off. Avocadogreenattress.com/tws for up to 15% off mattresses. avocadmattress.com/tws.
49:48
But then explain to me how nudge is going to, you know, everything we've been talked about is this isn't this is an urgent crisis and all the nudging and subsidies is only incrementally inching us to something. Meanwhile, you have a whole global south that hasn't developed the progress at the pace that in the the global north has. And now we're telling them you have to do it through these series of subsidies and and and markets. That seems unrealistic. It seems more
50:14
realistic to go to Exxon or wherever they are and go, "We'll give you a [ __ ] ton of money if you can figure out how to clean carbon out of our atmosphere." >> Well, but we wouldn't have to go to them to do that if the prices were right. >> But what I'm saying is if you if you live in the reality of the world, look at the yellow vest movement in Europe. Like even Europe with their uh we're doing the right thing and we ride our bikes everywhere. When you when you set the carbon price
50:48
not to the market of supply and demand but to the idea of what would be best for the world, you make yourself politically untenable. And if if and and that's that's to me the largest problem. Uh, we're in agreement and the >> You just said I was out in the Wait a minute. >> No, we are in agreement. We No, but John, you want son of a >> You want to have it both. >> Professor, I'm going to When are your office hours, professor? I'm coming in there. This grade C minus. Come on, man.
51:25
>> Man, you know what? I've given you office hours at 8 a.m. California time. This is the first time I've ever had office hours at 8 o'clock in the morning. John, >> sir, point taken. >> I have a long career. >> Point taken. >> Objection uh sustained. >> You know, you have office hours anytime you want, but uh it's going to be starting at 10 my time, henceforth. >> Works better for me, too. >> So, let let me u move to a slight one direction. Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Uh GPS. >> Okay.
52:06
>> If you have to You do leave home occasionally, I hear. >> Pretty occasionally. So that's not not a ton. >> Yeah. You know what? >> Before we get off the topic of status quo bias. >> Yes. Yes. >> You know, some people have called me the first clinical economist >> because of the psychological aspect of what you do. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I I I think there is some danger you suffer from status quo bias syndrome. >> Oh, tell me more. You know, I'm always up for having a new illness.
52:44
>> Yeah. Uh doesn't like leaving home. >> Yeah. >> Um >> no questions asked. >> Starts every show with some left-handed scribbling that looks sort of panic. Oh, by the way, if anybody would see it, there is no artistry there. It is really, >> you know, Britney and and her uh team. >> Yes. Our producers. Yeah. >> Yeah. They they tell me that um there's a lot of status quo bias syndrome in in in our book. >> You're saying inertia. There's a lot of inertia. >> Yeah. And and and I I would add um
53:25
continuing to root for the Mets for >> Oh, sir. Yeah. >> You know, I'm if you're saying that I somehow seem to be in love with the type of pain I you know, yeah, massochism runs in my family. >> I'm going to get in a lot of trouble for the following statement and then I will move on. >> Yes, please. I don't think there's anything wrong with firing your team. Oh, sir, you're treading on very dangerous ground right now. This is >> I also grew up in New Jersey. >> This type of uh heresy, sir.
54:00
>> Galileo. Galileo was was >> killed for less, sir. >> Yeah, I know. I know. We could both We may not want to air this episode, you know, but uh because I think we both could get burned at the state. >> Not at all. Not at all. >> But but I grew up in North Jersey, but uh so I grew up a Yankees fan. Yes. >> In the Mantle and Maris glory years. >> Sure. And then I grew to hate George Steinbrunner. >> And in my class on managerial decisionmaking, I had one of my rules, don't be like
54:39
George Steinbrunner. >> Fair enough. >> Okay. >> You're saying don't go to jail for any violations of certain shipping rules or >> No, no. No, I mean don't hire and fire the same manager three times. Okay. Every >> But George Steinbrer did win championships. >> He did, but not in a way that >> you enjoy. >> Or I approved of. >> Okay. >> Um and so I fired the Yankees. >> All right. >> And I'm just saying you should, you know, >> but after you fired the Yankees, they
55:14
apparently still had a job. So what I'm saying is that firing has no impact, >> you know. But look, my son suffers from this. When when he was a kid, he fell in love with the Dolphins. >> Great great uniform. Dan Marino, I'm assuming that was a Dan Marino era. >> Uh, great uniform. His wife and two daughters, you know, they live in San Francisco. They all adopted the Niners. >> I could see that. And but they have to put up with that turquoise and orange. >> Yeah. Yeah.
55:48
>> You know, the cost sees imposed. So is the point you're making here, if I may, is the point you're making that I am not giving humankind enough credit for an ability to adapt to uh understanding that the long-term harms that our shortterm uh actions are taking uh are damaging us and that if I'm just nudging them enough, we will understand that long-term that The short-term pleasure is not worth the long-term harm. >> No, I mean, what I was just doing is
56:26
giving you a little [ __ ] but let let's let let's let's get back to climate change. Um, GPS is my favorite kind of nudge and I'm I have geographical I'm sort of geographically dyslexic. Uh and GPS has like saved me. I can wander around in a strange city and find my way back to my hotel all by myself. >> You're a big boy. Normally I need my wife leading me by the hand. >> Yes. >> Now uh and my motto my mantra is design policies make it easy. >> Yes. >> That's my mantra. Make it easy. You and
57:18
I are agreeing. You can't tell people to go back to paper maps because so let's say we found out that GPS uh emits something through the towers that they use in the satellites that is heating the environment. Nudging people back to maps isn't going to work. And so what I'm saying is you have to create shves that create new avenues and new incentives that allow people to still enjoy the benefits of that progress while mitigating. >> No, but we don't No, nobody's required to use GPS,
57:57
>> but it's better. >> It's exactly right. That's my point. And oil and like energy is better. People need energy and and a lot of the suggestions from governments is let's use less. >> Okay. So bear with me, John. >> Yeah, please. >> Let let's switch to a different problem. >> Let's do ACA. Let's do healthcare because that's another one that I think in terms of its incentives and subsidies, but it's nudging a broken system when we should be shoving. >> Oh, okay. So let's go there by way of
58:33
retirement saving because I >> Yes. >> Okay. Because that one we did a little thing. All right. So one of the problems economists ignore is that people have self-control problems. You know uh uh we're fat. We drink too much. We don't save enough. Dark vision. We you know look around. open your eyes. >> Social Security was kind of a way to mitigate that. No. >> Yeah. But it's it works pretty well for um uh one segment which is people who have regular lowpaying jobs. The
59:19
replacement rate is kind of okay, but uh if you're in and out, not so much. And uh for the upper middle class, social security isn't enough really to live on. And the we used to have these oldfashioned defined benefit pension plans that guaranteed you an annuity depending on how much you made and how long you worked. And they got replaced with these 401k things, >> right? Those pensions were generally matched by employers and they were uh uh part of the responsibility and and
1:00:00
compensation package that you would get from the the old world of you went to work at a factory and you left it 45 years later, >> right? And you just you had no decisions to make. And with the new 401k, you had to join and decide how much to save and how to invest. >> And that was hard. And a lot of people in the early days of these didn't even join and the company was matching their contributions. It's the dumbest thing. It's turning down free money. So, how did we I'm not going to say fix
1:00:38
this, but improve it? One thing we did was we said it used to be if you wanted to be in the 401k you had to fill out a form. We said okay let's change the default. People are good at doing nothing. So we we are not a fan of people sir. >> Uh can we go back rewind the tape to the diagnosis of John? Right. >> Yes. >> Okay. So you got now get uh you you you now get a message saying welcome to our firm. Uh we're going to enroll you in the 401k plan unless you fill out this form.
1:01:25
>> Right. Right. Right. So so you made it so that the opt out took an action whereas the optin did not take an action therefore incentivizing the optin which is the better outcome for people in terms of money. >> Right. and and incentivizing cost just by changing the box, right? So again, what do regular economists would assume? It doesn't matter what box is ticked. If by joining I get a match. >> Would they really like they don't regular economists don't take into
1:01:59
account pain in the ass like that level of it? >> They would say the cost of ticking a box versus 6% of your salary. I mean really here's what I would say. Businesses understand that. That's why your credit card bill is unintelligible. Like when you read all that fine print, you have no idea what you're reading. And that's purpose obfiscation. It's purposeful. They understand that people aren't going to wade through that. They're not going to understand that. Wait a minute, after
1:02:30
6 months, this goes up to 21%. They they understand how to manipulate us all the time. >> Absolutely. All right. We are exactly on the same page. >> Yes. the system is designed to exploit us and people are uh don't have an ability to understand that because of the way that the system is allowed to be designed, >> right? And look, making it opt out is good for people and we improved pension plans just by switching which boxes ticked, >> right? No, that's that sounds like a very smart move.
1:03:09
>> But uh of course companies learn the same trick, not from us or at least I'm not taking the blame. >> They're reverse engineering. Of course, Nabiscoco makes chips that uh they design them so that they're almost impossible not to eat. You get fat and then big pharma makes GLP1s and that makes it so that uh you control your appetite. So then Nabiscoco has to engineer that to get past. I mean this is the cycle of exploitation. And I mean that's again that gets back to the
1:03:43
incentive here is greed. It's that's what that's what we're doing. And that's why I'm saying nudges sometimes are inadequate and shs. Yeah. >> Okay. I totally agree. So far the only thing we disagree about >> Mets. The Mets. >> Yeah. Okay. The two things we disagree about.
1:04:10
>> How long you think it's going to take you to cook dinner tonight? What do you think it's going to take? 30 minutes, 60 minutes? It takes me about 4 hours because I like to have it roasted by the sun's heat and put the ingredients together and just lay it on a window sill and whatever happens happens. It's why I'm always hungry. But Factor is bringing you deliciousness in two minutes. Two minutes. Factor meals are already made. Chefs designed by dietitians delivered to your door. You
1:04:39
just heat it for two minutes. Not by the sun. Whatever. However you eat things. They got proteins. They got veggies. Healthy fats. No refined sugars. No artificial sweeteners. No refined seed oils. Seed oils. You can choose from a 100 rotating meals every week. The meals are fresh. They're never frozen. There's no prep. There's no cleanup. There's no mental load involved in getting a healthy meal. Head to factormeals.com/tws50 off and use code TWWS50 off to get 50% off your first Factor box plus
1:05:16
free breakfast for a year. and offer only valid for new factor customers with code qualifying autorenewing subscription purchase make healthier eating easy with factor. >> The two things we disagree about are the Mets. >> Yeah. >> And whether getting the prices right would be sufficient. So let's look let's look at the ACA because the whole idea there is uh if we create a market for insurance we'll get the prices right and we'll subsidize for the people who can't because to get the market to be
1:05:54
efficient we need everybody to be in it and to get the insurance companies to allow everybody to be in it. we're going to have to make sure that we subsidize them because uh the markets include people with pre-existing conditions or uh people who are not healthy and the insurance companies don't want to deal with that. So we do little nudges about you can check this box cuz it's a very complicated market. And I look at that and think we are papering over a broken
1:06:21
system with nudges when we have to shove ourselves into what makes the most sense for health care which is which every other developed country in the world has already realized which is free market incentives don't work in a system with those kinds of externalities. Healthcare is not will never be a functioning market. And the system is designed to exploit people's need to not die. And by creating the ACA and all those other things, we're papering over what should
1:06:55
be the reality of the system, which is centralizing it is the only way to create something uh that will efficiently uh uh help people not die. that that's that's where I would crystallize my argument in in all of this. >> Right. And obviously we're going to have no listeners left if we if we >> who we don't have >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh if we go all the way down that path, the what I w here's what I will say. Mhm. >> I was actually in the White House while the catastrophic website that was being
1:07:43
design for ACA which crashed on the opening day, >> right? >> Uh somebody was designing that and I was talking to somebody. I said, "Could >> Wait, you were in the White House while that was going on?" while they were not while it was crashing before that when somebody was designing it and I said, "Oh, can I do go talk to that guy?" And they, "Oh, yeah, go see that guy." And they show me some screenshots and uh so here's what an behavioral economist thinks about. They had to
1:08:21
somebody had decided that the plans should be grouped into categories and the categories should get labels of metals like platinum, gold, silver, bronze. >> Oh, sell it like time shares. >> And so I said, what what um why why should we do this? And uh I never got an answer what the theory was for why uh >> I think the theory is like credit cards like you get a platinum, you get a black card, you get a one is basic, one is got some frills, the other is free drinks and food, you know.
1:09:05
>> But then down at the bottom there was another category and it didn't get a medal. It was called catastrophic. >> I said, "Wait a minute." So, a a catastrophic policy is one with a high deductible. >> It only helps you if you really if the [ __ ] hits the fan. >> Yeah. But economists, a lot of economists would say that's probably the most efficient policy. But my my comment to these guys was, "Wait, you're not calling one of the brands catastrophic, right? that we've got platinum, gold,
1:09:44
bronze catastrophic. And they say, "Yeah, well, that's what economists call those plans." But my comment would be catastrophic is how I would uh categorize the choice to treat health care like it's a product that companies like health insurers haven't already figured out how to exploit for maximum profit to the detriment of people who we always know people don't shop around for healthcare. Making it more transparent doesn't mean they'll shop around. They want to live. They
1:10:25
want to go to the best doctor that they can who is nearest to them. Especially in an emergency, they don't get a choice. And for us to continue to treat this as though it is some functioning market that we can do our usual games of subsidies and labeling to to to fix that. My point is that's a market that needs a shove. >> Yeah. Okay. So, I'm going to make two points. >> Yeah. One is some friends of mine and I ran a quick little experiment. Uh simply changing the name of the
1:11:07
catastrophic policy to economy or value in our experiments reduced the number of uninsured by 10%. >> Right. That was good. It's better to >> No, no, no, no, no. I'm not saying there isn't goods to be had. >> Okay. do that. >> That's point one. >> But let me let me say this. Are there still people who go bankrupt because they get sick? Have we fixed the problem that needs to be >> No, we have not. No, we have not. >> People that that >> Okay. All right. So here here's my So yes, I I think
1:11:50
>> don't let perfect be the enemy of good is the point. >> Yes. And if we're striving for perfect, you you you're absolutely right, John, that there are vested interests, the hospitals, the insurance companies, the doctors that don't want nurses to be able to do a lot of stuff. And pharmacists are the most overtrained people in the economy because they end up working in some god-awwful Walgreens or >> right meanwhile it's the benefit managers that are making all the money
1:12:37
because they're the middlemen setting the prices. But if we allow ourselves to be satisfied by these incremental positives and not let perfect be the enemy of good, don't we lose sight of don't let insane be the enemy of of sane or don't let sane be the enemy of insane? Like if we have a system that is like blatantly insane, aren't we? Yes, you make all these improvements. I'm not suggesting that there will ever be anything that's perfect, but if we continue to accept
1:13:16
such a broken and corrupted system as our only option is incremental improvements within that, aren't aren't economists and policy makers and everyone else robbing us of an opportunity? Because sometimes you need to to to view it on on not to go with the other terms of economics but the macro not the micro >> right so what I would say is you know Mark Cuban has a little company that >> sure >> it's very smart >> very smart >> but why doesn't the government do that >> well because
1:14:03
all of the vested interests. >> But that's my Okay. >> Well, but >> that's my point. >> Okay. But look, suppose you you say Medicare for all. >> Medicare for all that want it. Yes. Great. >> Right. So, language matters. >> Sure. Having a system that people can buy into. Anybody that wants to join a system so that you remove the possibility of going bankrupt because you get sick. to me is like the baseline of a healthy society. >> Well, so I would I would go further. Yeah. My plan would be
1:14:42
>> if we're going to start with something, I wouldn't start with that. >> Okay. >> I would start with >> catastrophic insurance for free for everyone. >> Okay, now we're getting somewhere. That's what I'm I'M A BEHAVIORAL ECONOMIST. I'M with you, baby. >> All right. YOU GO, METS. LET'S GO METS. Let's go Mets. >> He was so close. He was he was almost there, you know. >> So, we, you know, we can't we can't ignore all the vested interests. >> No, but they're the ones we should be
1:15:19
nudging and shoving, not consumers. I think we're always shoving on the wrong end of the horse. >> Well, but the Yeah. The problem is that there's there there's all those vested interests have lots of money and they support both parties and they they will uh make it difficult but that's the job of of of governance. I would say here's what I would love for economists and behavioral economists I think could play a big part in this is to help us understand that you know
1:16:02
the founders looked at the system and said there's going to be a balance a power checks and balances between the executive and the judiciary and the legislative but there's another power and that's corporate power and it's really the fourth branch of government and maybe one of the most influential branches and the only thing that we have in this country that is powerful enough to in any way mitigate that is the government. And if the government refuses to take a
1:16:33
courageous stand in mitigating that damage the damage of you know I remember Allan Greenspan was on my show in like 2008 2009. >> I must exciting. >> Oh it was he was only at that time I think he was n he was 98. He might have been 103 at that time. And uh I asked him, you know, the financial crisis 2008, like what the hell happened? And he goes, I think we overestimed made I think we overestimated the bank's ability to regulate themselves. >> Yeah. >> And I was like, you mean you were idiots?
1:17:08
Cuz that's insane. Well, you know, but we look, we we uh the Fed the Fed is probably the you could argue the best functioning branch of the government. Um and certainly you can argue it's got the best uh at least right now best trained people working for them and it it's a well functioning branch of the government that and uh you know that may all change I think I think I believe the plan is already in place to knock down the east wing and the Fed and you Uh, we have a
1:17:58
mutual friend, Austin Goulsby. >> I love the Goulsby, >> you know. >> And he's the president of the Chicago Fed. Um, >> come on. I love Goulsby. >> Yeah. Tell him I said hello. Tell him to come on this show. >> You know, I'm I'm sure Well, right now, uh, >> he's in the Fed. He's not allowed to talk much. >> Yeah. And anyway, >> that's tough on him. He's funny. You know, he's actually really funny. >> No, he's very funny. Uh, >> no, I like Goldby. Um so where were we? um you know the the
1:18:30
>> we were tearing down the fabric of uh capitalist institutions and reforming them to all right >> the problem is we wouldn't know where to start and there there's just there you know if Mark Cuban can't do it I mean just any one step so like my version of free catastrophic for all I think is a good place to start, but it wouldn't eliminate the power of the American Medical Association to limit what physicians assistants can do and the insurance companies and
1:19:15
all the benefit managers and all the layers. I I it's above my pay grade to think about. >> No, I understand. And you know what that it's it's a great place I think uh to and I've so appreciated your time and your office hours. You've been so generous with them and uh you know I was taking this thing past fail anyway. So the idea that you gave me time >> No, I don't allow past fail. >> What? >> No. And I am I'm not going near you, man. >> But you know uh but you know uh there's
1:19:45
grade nondisclosure. >> That's where I'm at. >> So uh >> let's do that. Let's do that. >> Yeah. Okay. But I think the point that I think maybe I I love coming to is this. I love the idea of those really smart incentivized nudges and those things, but not allowing that to remove our higher aspiration of actually looking at the logistics and the guts of something and and and and getting systems that are not as exploitative. that you know government has to have a
1:20:25
larger role in mitigating the damage. Look, capitalism is the operating system we have, but it's clearly not a free market. It's intervened in by governments and all kinds of other corrupt actors and the crony capitalism that goes along with it. And my point is, let's continue to do those really smart things that you're talking about, but we cannot lose sight of the larger goal, which is to that a government has to be there to help mitigate the collateral damage that the operating
1:20:58
system we've chosen to use often creates. >> Yeah. And uh we need we need another show, John, to figure out h how to get there. Oh, but we will. We w we can. Yes, we the audacity of hope, baby. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> You're a good man. Professor, thank you for for joining us. Professor Richard Thaylor, University of Chicago in uh one of the founding fathers of behavioral economics, the 2017 Nobel Prize in Econ, which is uh sitting on Donald Trump's uh fireplace mantle as we speak,
1:21:41
>> but is up for sale. >> Up for sale. >> Up for sale forever. >> You know what? And and you can get that and a Cornell mug, I'm assuming, for just seven $7 more >> or or uh a nudge mug. There we go. >> Excellent product placement. Thank you so much, professor. >> Thank you, John. Pleasure to meet you. >> Pleasure to meet you, too. >> Hey, folks, it's Quint time. Today's sponsor, Quint, helps you forget about all the fashion nightmares. Quint, they bring together the premium materials,
1:22:20
the thoughtful design, the quality. You stay warm, you look sharp, you feel your best. Each piece made from premium materials by trusted factories that meet rigorous standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. But they cut out the middleman. I don't like middlemen. Do you like middlemen? Maybe you're a middleman. Maybe you do like middlemen. But you cut out the middlemen and you cut out the traditional markups. Quint delivers the same quality as these luxury brands at a
1:22:45
fraction of the price. Refresh your winter wardrobe with Quint. Go to quint.com/tws for free shipping on your order and 365day returns. Now available in Canada, too. That's quint.com/tws. Free shipping and 365day returns. quint.com/tws.
1:23:11
Man, my favorite part of the interview, if I may, was how slowly he talked to try and I really felt like it was I think it was about like 10 minutes into it when he was like, I'm going to have to change my tact here because little brain is not >> No. >> Yeah. I don't think he was expecting that conversation. >> My favorite part was when he psychoanalyzed you. I think that was the first time that's happened on the pod. That is right. >> I got to tell you though,
1:23:45
I thought he he kind of [ __ ] nailed it. >> I mean, they don't give out Nobel prizes for nothing, you know? >> No, I thought he I I I thought he did an excellent job. Did any of that resonate though w with you guys? I think I I get where he's coming from with that idea of like don't let perfect be the enemy of good, but I don't know that they if it's not to suggest that incrementalism isn't still a part of the equation. >> Of course, >> but I don't know if they understand
1:24:14
the general frustration within the public >> 100%. I thought it was incredibly illuminating that a conversation about healthcare, >> his grievance or what his brain went to was the categorization of shitty plans. >> Like not having those categories, explaining in really big print exactly what these plans do not mean they don't all suck still. >> Yeah. I think it's like so if economists argue that you should choose the catastrophic plan because that would be optimal and then behavioral economists
1:24:49
argue we need to change the name because because people aren't choosing the most optimal plan then we need to find someone that will argue that the problem is actually the most optimal plan is a plan that you will go broke if you need to use. Like that's the real problem here. That was trying to explain like aren't you just like polishing turds at that point. >> But I I mean I I get his point that there is like you you did help some people. >> Yeah, absolutely.
1:25:19
>> But I think sometimes that gives you license to ignore the larger totality of climate change, healthcare of by by by incrementalizing you also are forgetting that you al you have to maximalize as well. big structural change. >> Thank you. >> Well, I was thinking a little bit when you were bringing up the subsidy is that's a shove, right? And if we just think about the subsidy itself, this the shove is even small in comparison to what we should be doing. We take away
1:25:50
the subsidy, 1.5 million people drop out of the ACA marketplace. Those are the people who are young who are holding up the system for like the 5% of people who are really using it. But the whole thing's going to start crumbling because of this shove that was supposed to be a fix, which it's not. >> That's right. That's right. I I almost think he would still categorize subsidy as like a a nudge and the shove would be the redesign of it, but they don't boy I thought he got really like that was
1:26:22
where he was like uncomfortable like you can't just, you know, you can't bring your weight on insurance companies. That's not right. His pauses got longer in those moments. >> He just got sad. That's when he went to like, "You're a Mets fan, aren't you?" Uh, but anyway, man, I thought I thought that was I I thought he was really interesting and very very illuminating, I think, uh, for me. What What about Britney? What do we got for the listeners there? What do they got there? What do they want?
1:26:49
>> All righty. Uh, first up, we've got John. Of all the Trump news this week, which development worried you the most? Oh, I think uh the election, you know, with all the uh the elites are going to get out of uh everything I'm sort of accustomed to, as we said on the show last night, uh the real sanctuary city in this country, which is this privileged class that there is no crime they can commit that would have any kind of accountability to it. Uh but it was
1:27:20
the the the raid on uh the Fulton County uh electoral board along with his off-hand remark about nationalizing the election only in uh I think the 15 states that cause him a problem. >> Yeah, I'm just spitballing here, but what if we nationalize the elections in the 15 states that cause me a problem? >> Right. >> Yeah. >> I mean, he's going to end up tariffing states. >> Oh, sweet Lord. And this was like a small related uh situation, but he actually called Tulsi Gabbard after
1:27:52
assigning her that mission. Trump was just on the phone with her while they're doing it. >> Why is he even assigning her anyway? What the [ __ ] is the president assigning the DNI to an FBI? He's not supposed to be assigning the FBI to stuff. They're supposed to be independent. >> And she's also under some top secret investigation while this is all going on. The whole thing's a mess. But I agree with you. Do you know what the invest is? What? >> No. No. It's top secret. It's like
1:28:19
locked away so that even Congress doesn't know cuz they don't want it to get out. >> It's in a safe. >> I bet it's about the streak. The streak in the hair. >> Oh, don't talk about people's gray streaks. >> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's the streak. People are going to say, "What is that? What is That's clearly a She's giving a sign to somebody. >> Yeah, we hold our secrets in them. >> Is it Putin? Is that who we're Yeah. No, I agree with you. That's and and and the
1:28:43
problem is you don't ever think there'll be no accountability for any of them in the first place anyway. So they're operating under uh as they would say as JD Vance would say absolute immunity which is a [ __ ] ridiculousness. What else what else do they want? What else do these viewers listeners Yeah. >> Um why can Trump threaten to sue everyone for a gazillion dollars but no one can sue him back? That is a Zen Cohen. That is I I think I might have that. That was a I believe
1:29:16
that might have been a fortune cookie that I got the other day. It That's one of those The Buddhists will go to a monastery and they will sit there in silence for years pondering the question of why uh Trump. Now, to be fair, no one has been sued more than Donald Trump in my estimate. Like if you go through his construction records, every [ __ ] contractor he's ever worked with is like, "Uh, hey man, you still owe me 15% of the money." And he's like, "Come and get me.
1:29:48
>> Try it." He's a victim. Yeah. >> The poor poor poor sweet billionaire president. >> There have been some recent suits, but I think that I mean, he's making so much money off the presidency probably go on forever. >> He's killing it. whereas people can't afford to continue these suits. >> Oh, they've got I mean the Supreme Court made it basically so that like he kind of no matter what he does uh you know is sort of in the guise of his presidential duties, you're not even allowed to do
1:30:19
discovery. I think part of why you can't sue him is like I'm suing you. Great. What evidence do you have? Well, I'd like to see your emails. Boy, I'd love to but I don't I don't have to. But his, you know, it's interesting the the the mindset that he had as, you know, running Trump Enterprises is the same as he has when it comes to be president. It's the exploitation he did like on all of his contractors. Everybody People don't realize like so many contractors
1:30:46
in New York City [ __ ] hate that guy because his his whole strategy was I'll pay you just enough money to satisfy a certain portion of the contract, but I won't pay you the final 10 or 15%. knowing that you as a small contractor, the hassle and money it will take you to try and recoup that won't be worth it. And so I will get myself 10 to 15% off of everything that I do. >> That's behavioral economics, right? >> Jillian Spear tying the whole show together. >> We're tying it all together.
1:31:21
>> One more. One more question. >> All righty. John, which Super Bowl halftime show will you be watching? Bad Bunny or Kid Rock. >> Puppy Bowl. >> There's already counterprogramming. If only Turning Point USA now. >> No, I I always watch a Super Bowl halftime show. I don't I don't particularly care who's on it. A, it's a continuity issue. Behavioral economics, status quo thinking. >> Nice inertia. >> I feel bad for like I feel bad. Not bad, but I mean he's a superstar, but Bad
1:31:51
Bunny like the [ __ ] this guy's take. he reaches the pinnacle of his uh professional career and a kind of global superstar to get the uh opportunity to do a halftime show. The guy's clearly a [ __ ] extraordinary musician and entertainer who's earned this place. And the idea that he's facing a backlash, my favorite backlash to it is, you know, you got to get a [ __ ] American in there and you're like, uh, >> yeah, read a [ __ ] book, >> right? The Jillian sigh tells us all we need to know.
1:32:25
>> It drives me crazy. I love Bad Bunny. Like, oh, he's going to kill it. I can't wait. >> Bonito. >> That's why I'm tuning in. >> I'm so excited. >> The game's going to be a blowout. >> He's wonderful. He just won two GR three Grammys Sunday night. Plus, he's really hot. So, >> really, >> he has Kid Rock beat in that for sure. Wait, so the Bad Bunny also has a little bit of a machismo, a little bit of a vibe going. >> Oh, yeah. >> Interesting. >> You know, but to be a musician versus a
1:32:56
comed, you know, this this comed never done about comedians. It's always musicians. People love the It's something with the the hips not lying. Uh well, listen, uh very very lovely guys. Uh thank you once again, Britney. How How do they How do they stay in touch with us for all this? Uh, Twitter, we are Weekly Show Pod. Instagram threads, Tik Tok, Blue Sky, we are Weekly Show podcast. And you can like, subscribe, and comment on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with John Stewart.
1:33:23
>> And Instagram, baby, if you want to see all of my nasal pores. Join join me on my page. Uh, thank you guys so much. Lead producer Lauren Walker, producer Britney MDC, producer Jillian Spear, video editor and engineer Rob Vto, audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, executive producers Chris McShane, and Katie Gray. We will see you guys next time. The Weekly Show with John Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast that's produced by Paramount Audio and Bus Boy Productions.
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat