Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Still More on Contributions to Judges | Main | Race, Price, and the Mortgage Market »

Sunday, October 08, 2006



Interesting. I wonder whether it is proper to assume, as I believe the Ayres-Nalabuff article does, that if a state switches from a straight lottery to a half lottery/half retirement account, people will continue to play the lottery at the same rate or in the same numbers. If the scheme were to change as proposed, and the state continued to put the same percentage of what it receives toward education (or some other governmental program), wouldn't the state reduce the pay off for a winning ticket? If that were the case, wouldn't some who play now no longer play? Wouldn't the people who would stop playing be the people who would rather gamble their entire dollar than gamble half of it and put the other half in an IRA? In other words, doesn't this scheme depend on convincing people (perhaps tricking people) into doing something they don't really want to do?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

May 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31