Interesting points, sorely lacking positive and negative examples.

This post makes many bold claims in rapid succession, and mostly supports them via anecdotes or simple statistical/microeconomic models. It also does so in a way which sounds ambitious and wise.

These are flags suggesting that it could use a review. However, the low karma and comments might make a review less necessary.

To be clear, though...

1) I personally liked the post and believe many of the claims in the post, e.g.

• "in any given type of institution [...] some organizations that outperform the others by orders of magnitude"
• "Institutions we do see are functional enough to persist because of selection effects, not because humans are particularly good at making them work"
• "It is much more difficult to make a dysfunctional institution functional than to create a functional institution from scratch"

I probably agree with it somewhat strongly on the whole.

2) I think it's unreasonable to demand that every post justifies itself, and covers all corner cases, in a perfectly rigorous way. That'll reduce the amount of content by a lot. That's not what I suggest that this post does.

However, it's at least plausible to demand that every post be able to pass review -- that is, of being able to reasonably be turned into something that is sufficiently rigorous (even if the draft wasn't).

If someone writes in this style and reliable passes reviews, it seems fine for them to keep writing in this style.