Scott analyzes why people support government-funded foreign aid instead of donating voluntarily, examining and critiquing several theories including virtue signaling, coordination problems, and time-inconsistent preferences.

Scott Alexander examines the justification for billionaire wealth, introducing the concept of replaceability to challenge the standard neoliberal defense.

Scott Alexander reviews 'Just Giving' by Rob Reich, criticizing its arguments against philanthropy by showing how they could also be used to condemn book-writing.

Scott Alexander reviews 'Against The Grain', which argues that early grain agriculture and state formation were detrimental to human welfare and mainly benefited emerging state powers.

Scott Alexander reviews analyses of various UBI plans, finding most unrealistic, then speculates on alternative approaches to implement UBI successfully.

Scott updates his stance on marijuana legalization based on new data showing increased traffic accidents, but remains uncertain due to the complexity of the issue.

Scott Alexander shares and comments on key passages from Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century', discussing historical economic trends and their modern implications.

Scott Alexander reposts his 'Non-Libertarian FAQ' critiquing libertarian philosophy and arguments, noting it no longer fully reflects his current views.

Scott Alexander examines the concept of infinite debts in personal and societal contexts, proposing a practical approach of paying manageable 'interest' rather than attempting full repayment.

The post details the economic and relationship systems of Raikoth, a fictional society designed to optimize for goodness and weirdness.

Scott proposes the "noncentral fallacy" as a candidate for the worst argument in the world: applying emotional reactions from archetypal category members to non-archetypal examples, illustrated through examples like calling Martin Luther King Jr. a "criminal."

Scott explores how innate neurological differences in emotional responses might drive political disagreements, suggesting that people form intuitive reactions first and rationalize them later, making political debate extremely difficult.