Anders Chelgren, Chapter 1, Question #6

           The passage that was most interesting to me in chapter one was the passage about cashews. This example stood out to me because it was a bit of a curve ball to my still novice understanding of economics. "Given that economics is build upon the assumption that humans act consistently in ways that make themselves better off, one might reasonable ask: Are we really that rational? Not always, it turns out" (p.25). This quote preceded Richard Thaler's story about how cashews ruined the appetite's of hungry guests at his dinner party. The moral of this story was that these rational people, knowing that they would be better rewarded if they waited to consume the main meal, made the choice to spoil their appetite's. He then claimed that these people could not help but eat the cashews and by removing them from the table, he did them a service. "In theory, it should never be possible to make rational individuals better off by denying them some option [but it is]" (p.25). This economic idea was quite intriguing. Prior to his examples, I would have agreed with the statement about people always acting to some degree in their own self interest, yet with examples like cashews, smoking, and dieting I realized the validity of his later point. People do in fact, not always make the choice that is rationally the best in the long term, instead they often subconsciously or carelessly choose otherwise. This is both interesting and true but it then begs further questions. If its better for someone to stop eating cashews, or smoking for another example, is it our business and our job to limit that persons decisions? Wheelan claims, "If humans lack the self discipline to do things they know will make themselves better off in the long run, then society could conceivably make them better off by helping them to do thing they otherwise would not or could not do--the public policy equivalent to taking the cashew bowl away" (25). After reading this chapter I am even more split between what may be economically sound, and what is the best coarse of action. If the cashew idea was played out in real life, limiting a persons decision making opportunity's, even for their benefit, is in my eyes a oppression of freedom. A public policy forcing people to be healthy may pay off physically, but at what cost to freedom. Even this situation is one including opportunity cost.