The experiment found no evidence for the "paternalistic" view that in-kind transfers are better and that cash transfers induce consumption of unhealthy products. Since cash transfers are cheaper to carry out, a practical conclusion of this experiment is that it is better to help the poor by giving them cash transfers that they can use according to their subjective preferences. Criticism J. K. Galbraith claims that advertising distorts consumers' preferences, so consumers' revealed preferences actually represent what is good for the advertisers and not what is good for consumers themselves. Lester Thurow claims that many consumers (e.g. children and drug-addicts) are not competent to know what is good for them. Moreover, even competent individuals have preferences that are partly influenced by society, and do not represent only their own wants. Various studies show that consumers' preferences are irrational and inconsistent, and so they cannot represent what is actually good for them. This is true, in particular, for inter-temporal decisions (such as deciding how much to save for old age) and probabilistic decisions (such as assessing the risks of financial investments). A practical implication of such criticisms is that governments should provide merit goods rather than lump-sum transfers. References Further reading Campbell R. McConnell and Stanley L. Brue (1999), Economics (14th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Consumer theory Sovereignty