Scott Alexander summarizes and analyzes various critiques of Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century', finding that many of Piketty's key claims don't hold up well under scrutiny. Longer summary

This post summarizes various critiques and discussions of Thomas Piketty's book 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century'. Key points include: Matt Rognlie's criticism that Piketty didn't correctly account for capital depreciation, and that recent capital-share growth comes primarily from housing. The post questions Piketty's claim about higher returns for the super-rich, with various commenters providing insights on investment strategies and market behavior. It also discusses critiques of Piketty's income distribution statistics and data interpretation. The post concludes that many of Piketty's main claims, such as the rising rentier class and much better returns for the super-rich, don't hold up well under scrutiny, though some of his rules of thumb for growth are more robust than expected. Shorter summary

Ozy argues for diversifying charitable donations, while Scott counters that focusing on the single most efficient charity at any given time is more effective. Longer summary

This post includes two perspectives on charity donation strategies. Ozy argues for diversification in charitable giving, comparing it to stock market investing. They suggest that a society of effective altruists would still support various charities due to uncertainty and the balance between high-risk/high-return and low-risk/low-return options. Scott disagrees, arguing that charity differs from stock investments due to the absence of diminishing returns in lives saved. He introduces concepts of disaster aversion and low-hanging fruit, concluding that at any given time, there is one most efficient charity to donate to based on current funding levels and marginal utility. Shorter summary