ディアドラ・マクロスキーが、昨年ノーベル経済学賞(もちろんマクロスキーはノーベル賞と認めていない)を受賞したリチャード・セイラーを舌鋒鋭く批判し、併せてクルーグマンスティグリッツも盛大にディスっている(H/T Mostly Economics)。

Once Thaler has established that you are in myriad ways irrational it's much easier to argue, as he has, vigorously—in his academic research, in popular books, and now in a column for The New York Times—that you are too stupid to be treated as a free adult. You need, in the coinage of Thaler's book, co-authored with the law professor and Obama adviser Cass Sunstein, to be "nudged." Thaler and Sunstein call it "libertarian paternalism."
Adam Smith spoke of "the man of system" who "seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board." Thaler and his benevolent friends are men, and some few women, of system. They hate the Chicago School, have never heard of the Austrian School, dismiss spontaneous order, and favor bossing people around—for their own good, understand. Employing the third most unbelievable sentence in English (the other two are "The check is in the mail" and "Of course I'll respect you in the morning"), they declare cheerily, "We're from the government and we're here to help."
For Thaler, every one of the biases is a reason not to trust people to make their own choices about money. It's an old routine in economics. Since 1848, one expert after another has set up shop finding "imperfections" in the market economy that Smith and Mill and Bastiat had come to understand as a pretty good system for supporting human flourishing.
The Progressive economists believed they saw monopolies, spillovers, informational asymmetry, consumer ignorance, producer ignorance—in short, everyone's folly and ignorance except the nudging government's—to the number of over one hundred imperfections. They imagined a new one every year or so, and lately have been getting Nobels for discovering allegedly fresh market failures. Paul Krugman, for example, received the prize in 2008, supposedly for reinventing monopolistic competition for international trade. He deserved it eventually, though he got it embarrassingly prematurely (compare Obama's for peace) because the social democratic Swedes wanted to buck up a left-of-center columnist. Krugman tweeted about Thaler: "Yes! Behavioral econ is the best thing to happen to the field in generations." He would say that.
The amiable Joe Stiglitz says that whenever there is a "spillover"—my ugly dress offending your delicate eyes, say—the government should step in. A Federal Bureau of Dresses, rather like the one Saudi Arabia has. In common with Thaler and Krugman and most other economists since 1848, Stiglitz does not know how much his imagined spillovers reduce national income overall, or whether the government is good at preventing the spill. I reckon it's about as good as the Army Corps of Engineers was in Katrina.
Thaler, in short, melds the list of psychological biases with the list of economic imperfections. It is his worthy scientific accomplishment. His conclusion, unsupported by evidence?
It's bad for us to be free.
進歩派の経済学者は、独占、波及効果、情報の非対称性、消費者の無知、生産者の無知――要するにナッジを行う政府を除く全員の愚行と無知――という100以上の不完全性が見い出されたと考えている。彼らはほぼ毎年新しいものを想像し、最近では新たな市場の失敗と称するものを発見してノーベル賞を受けている。例えばポール・クルーグマンは、独占的競争を国際貿易について再発明したという名目で2008年に受賞した。彼は最終的にはそれに値したが、受賞はあまりにも早過ぎた(オバマの平和賞並みである)。それは、社会民主主義的なスウェーデン人が中道左派のコラムニストを奨励したいがためだった。クルーグマンはセイラーについて「素晴らしい! 行動経済学は経済学で数世代に一度の最善の出来事である」とツイートした。もちろん彼はそう言うだろう。