Standard economic theories rely on an implicit assumption that controlled, cognitive processes are the key to economic decision making. Yet..

We fear terrorism, when red meat poses a much greater risk of mortality. And, when it comes to asking someone out on a date, getting up to speak at the podium, or taking an important exam, our deliberative self uses diverse tactics to get us to take risks, or to perform in the face of risks, that our visceral self would much prefer to avoid. Perhaps the most dramatic illustrations of the separation of visceral reactions and cognitive evaluations, however, comes from the phobias that so many people suffer from; the very hallmark of a phobia is to be unable to face a risk that one recognizes, objectively, to be harmless.

Moreover, fear unleashes preprogrammed sequences of behavior that aren't always beneficial. Thus, when fear becomes too intense it can produce counter-productive responses such as freezing, panicking, or 'dry-mouth' when speaking in public. The fact that people pay for therapy to deal with their fears, and take drugs (including alcohol) to overcome them, can be viewed as further "evidence" that people, or more accurately, people's deliberative selves, are not at peace with their visceral reactions to risks. (from Colin Camerer's How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics, Caltech)

Held back by the limitations of current brain imaging technologies and biochips, neuroeconomics is slowly laying the foundational knowledge that will help us understand how neuroceuticals will influence every aspect of our future lives.  

I think it's time for a $100M grant to get the Global Neuroeconomics Institute off and running.  Can you spare some change?