Scott Alexander responds to comments on his capitalism vs charity post, clarifying his argument and addressing various counterpoints and suggested capitalist charities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about capitalism and charity. He clarifies that he's discussing a specific near-mode situation of how to best use a limited amount of money for improving human welfare, not running a 'Moral Worth Tournament' between capitalism and charity. He addresses arguments for investing in capitalism over charity, discussing issues like compounding returns, marginal utility, and the eventual need for consumption. Scott also explores specific capitalist charities suggested by commenters, including charter cities and microfinance, noting the lack of strong empirical evidence for many of these interventions. He concludes by stating what kind of evidence would change his mind on this topic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander compares the marginal impact of capitalism vs. charity, finding that traditional charity often seems more effective despite capitalism's historical success. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the question of whether capitalism is more effective than charity in helping others. He compares the impact of investing in a successful company like Instacart to donating to a highly effective charity like Dispensers For Safe Water. While acknowledging capitalism's overall historical success, Scott argues that at the margin, traditional charity often seems to have a greater direct impact. He examines potential second-order effects of capitalism but finds them insufficient to clearly outweigh charity's benefits. The post concludes by considering alternative capitalist-oriented charitable approaches, such as development aid or charter cities, but notes the lack of rigorous evaluation for these options. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares his experiences and challenges in running a microgrants program, offering insights and advice for others considering similar initiatives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander recounts his experience running a microgrants program, detailing the challenges and complexities involved. He discusses the difficulty of evaluating grant proposals, relying on expert advisors, dealing with applicants' poor grant-writing skills, and navigating the moral dilemmas of effective altruism. Scott concludes by questioning whether running such a program is worthwhile for most people, suggesting alternatives like donating to established charities, and proposing a new impact certificate-based system for future grant-making. Shorter summary