Scott Alexander replies
Here is more Scott Alexander on aid and overhead.
First, on overhead Scott is still promulgating various confusions, for instance making the simple mistake of mixing up “Mercatus” and “Emergent Ventures.”
When it comes to overhead (rather than aid), the substantive point in question is whether the affiliated NGOs, and also the various government aid bureaucracies, have significant excess overhead, and there is a hefty body of theory and evidence from public choice economics suggesting that is the case. Scott seems unwilling to just flat out acknowledge this, instead insisting there is no magic path to much lower overhead. Cutting overhead expenditures is that magic path, and plenty of institutions both private and public have done it, especially when forced to.
Scott also holds the unusual view that overhead as measured on a 990 is a relevant metric. Typically not. A lot of the actual noxious overhead shows up as program expenditures. A large number of wasteful, poorly run non-profits can get their 990 numbers down to normal levels without engaging in outright lying.
On aid more generally, Scott would avoid a lot of trouble and misunderstandings (much of which still persist) and unproductive anger if he simply would use the MR search function to read my previous posts (and other writings) on a topic. He does not cite or link to those works. (Especially after 22 years of posts, I do not feel the need to each time repeat all views and clarifications when it is all so accessible.) The result is that he has created a Jerry Mahoney-style “dialog,” pretended I am in it, and then expressed a mix of anger and bewilderment at my supposed views and supposed lack of clarifications.
It is not that I expect anybody, much less someone as busy as Scott, to read everything I have written on a topic. But if you have not, it is better to write on “aid and overhead,” rather than “Tyler Cowen on aid and overhead.” (Imagine if instead you were writing on “Ricardo and rent.”) That is typically the more constructive and more relevant approach anyway. Instead, Scott has thrown the biggest fit I have ever seen him throw over a single sentence from me that was not clear enough (and I readily admit it was not clear enough in stand alone form), but made clear elsewhere.
On rhetoric, call me old-fashioned, but if you publicly refer to a class of people as scum, and express a hope that they burn in hell, you should retract those words and also think through why you might have been led to that point. I am not persuaded by Scott’s sundry observations to the contrary, such as noting that the president is (sort of) protected by the Secret Service. Scott cites my use of the term “supervillains,” but in fact (as Cremiaux repeatedly retweets) that was part of a desire not to cancel people with differing views, not a desire that they burn in hell. It was expressly stated as a plea for tolerance.
Scott also writes:
This has been a general pattern in debates with Tyler. I will criticize some very specific point he made, and he’ll challenge whether I am important enough to have standing to debate him. “Oh, have you been to 570 different countries? Have you eaten a burrito prepared by an Ethiopian camel farmer with under-recognized talent? Have you read 800 million books, then made a post about each one consisting of a randomly selected paragraph followed by the words ‘this really makes you think, for those of you paying attention’?”
Scott does not link to my post here, which was extremely polite and respectful. Nor does he quote that post (or any other), as it would not support his assertions. Instead he makes up words for me and puts them in quotation marks. I have never criticized Scott for not reading enough books, to cite another misrepresentation. (I do not pretend to know, but I am under the impression he reads a lot of books!?). I have linked to him and praised his analysis repeatedly. Nor have I challenged whether he is “important enough” to “debate.” I am well known for having a large number of interchanges with people who are extremely uncredentialed. Furthermore, earlier I invited Scott to do a CWT with me, for me a mark of real interest and respect. He declined.
At least in this last passage it is evident that the real problem is, at least for the moment, in Scott’s head.