Scott Alexander critiques an NYT article on the weakness of financial incentives, arguing that they remain crucial as a counterweight to powerful social incentives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a New York Times article arguing that financial incentives are less powerful than commonly assumed. He agrees with the article's main points but offers four counterarguments: 1) Marginal cases matter more than average responses, 2) Social norms can be shaped by long-term economic incentives, 3) The principle can be applied inconsistently across political lines, and 4) Financial incentives serve as an important counterweight to social incentives. Scott emphasizes that while social incentives are indeed powerful, financial incentives play a crucial role in encouraging innovation and counterbalancing potentially stifling social pressures. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on billionaire philanthropy, addressing criticisms while ultimately defending its net positive impact and arguing to protect the most effective charitable efforts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about billionaire philanthropy. He addresses criticisms and counterarguments, providing further analysis on topics like the scale of billionaire donations compared to political spending, the democratic nature of philanthropy, tax deductibility, and potential downsides. While acknowledging some valid concerns, Scott ultimately defends the net positive impact of billionaire philanthropy, especially highlighting examples like the Gates Foundation's global health work. He argues that even if some billionaire philanthropy is problematic, the most effective charitable efforts are so valuable that they should be protected and encouraged. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to criticisms of his tax bill posts, maintains that wealth distribution is more important than growth, and argues the bill likely won't benefit the poor as much as current spending. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses his thoughts on the recent tax bill, responding to criticisms of his previous posts. He admits he was wrong about there being no case for the bill and about CEO statements on using tax cuts. However, he maintains that economic growth is less important than wealth distribution, using an analogy about an effective altruist in a small town. He argues that in societies with high inequality, redistribution can be more beneficial than growth. Scott compares the potential benefits of the tax cut to other uses of government funds, concluding that it likely won't benefit the poor as much as maintaining current spending. He acknowledges some potential errors in his calculations but believes his overall point stands. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends his criticism of the GOP tax bill, arguing that even if taxes should be lowered, there are more effective ways to cut taxes that would directly benefit the poor and middle class. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to criticism of his previous article on the GOP tax bill, reaffirming his position that the bill is a poor approach to tax cuts. He argues that even if one believes taxes should be lower, there are better ways to implement tax cuts. Scott suggests that halving income taxes for the bottom 80% of earners would be a more effective alternative. He critiques the argument that corporate tax cuts boost economic growth, citing economist opinions, CEO statements, and historical trends. The post emphasizes that direct tax cuts or welfare programs for the poor and middle class would be more beneficial than the proposed corporate tax cuts. Shorter summary