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. Longer summary

Scott examines why people support government-funded foreign aid rather than just donating directly, pushing back against the 'other people's money' argument. He considers and critiques several explanations: the force multiplier theory (seizing opponents' money), virtue signaling through voting, psychological free-riding on knowing problems are solved, coordination problems requiring bundling, transaction costs that make voluntary systems impractical, and time-inconsistent preferences where people's long-term values differ from their moment-to-moment impulses. Scott concludes by proposing a thought experiment where tax forms include an opt-out box for foreign aid, predicting most people wouldn't use it, suggesting the issue is more complex than simply wanting to spend others' money. Shorter summary

A review of Richard Hanania's book arguing that public choice theory, not grand strategy, explains US foreign policy decisions and their often devastating consequences. Longer summary

This book review discusses Richard Hanania's 'Public Choice Theory And The Illusion Of Grand Strategy', which argues that public choice theory better explains US foreign policy than the unitary actor model. The review covers the book's key arguments, including how special interest groups shape foreign policy, the incoherence of American interventions, and the devastating effects of sanctions. It also explores the book's relevance to current events like the Russian invasion of Ukraine and potential implications for nuclear security and effective altruism. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines Ezra Klein's concept of 'vetocracy' and its implications for American governance and progress. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses Ezra Klein's concept of 'vetocracy', which describes the increasing inability of American institutions to build, innovate, or solve problems due to multiple veto points. The post explores whether vetocracy is the same as polarization, why it's happening, and how it relates to increasing regulation. Scott questions why vetocracy hasn't led to a libertarian paradise and considers potential solutions, including the drastic option of creating unchangeable structures as proposed in the crypto world. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander addresses feedback on his conflict vs. mistake theory post, acknowledging criticisms while defending the core concept's usefulness as a starting point for understanding different approaches to societal problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his post about conflict vs. mistake theory. He acknowledges valid criticisms while defending the core concept as useful, even if imperfect. Key points include: 1) The dichotomy is meant as a starting point for understanding, not a perfect description. 2) There's confusion between the theories and specific political ideologies that needs clarification. 3) The theories may be better understood as different perspectives or emphases rather than mutually exclusive worldviews. 4) Some commenters offer interesting alternative interpretations or applications of the concepts. 5) Scott reflects on the complexities around ideas of 'shilling' and bias in relation to the theories. Shorter summary