Scott Alexander challenges Richard Hanania's explanation for liberal dominance in institutions, attributing it instead to shifting coalition systems described by Thomas Piketty. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Richard Hanania's article asking why everything is liberal despite roughly equal numbers of conservative and liberal voters. Alexander argues that the reason is not, as Hanania suggests, that liberals care more about politics, but rather due to shifting coalition systems as described by Thomas Piketty. Piketty's research shows a change from a 1950s system of elite vs. common parties to a current system where the left captures highly educated voters while the right captures less educated and some wealthy voters. This shift explains why institutions dominated by highly educated people lean liberal. Alexander discusses the implications of this shift, including potential instability in the system and the risk of institutional monocultures. He suggests potential solutions like decreasing the importance of college degrees in society and solving racism to shake up political coalitions. Shorter summary

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