Scott Alexander compares political spending to the almond industry, revealing surprisingly low amounts in politics due to coordination problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the surprisingly low amount of money in politics compared to other industries, using the almond industry as a benchmark. He notes that all US spending on candidates, PACs, lobbying, think tanks, and advocacy organizations combined is less than the annual revenue of the almond industry. The post examines various sectors of political spending and media properties, highlighting their relatively low monetary value. Scott discusses three reasons why this is surprising: ordinary people's political engagement, wealthy individuals' interests, and corporate influence post-Citizens United. He considers potential explanations, including Ansolabehere's argument about the ineffectiveness of political spending, but ultimately suggests that coordination problems are the main factor preventing more money from entering politics. The post concludes by drawing a parallel between political spending and charitable giving, arguing that the same coordination problems affect both areas. 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 argues that the EpiPen price hike is due to over-regulation and cronyism in the pharmaceutical industry, not lack of regulation as suggested by Vox. Longer summary

This post criticizes Vox's article on EpiPen price hikes, arguing that the problem isn't lack of regulation but over-regulation and cronyism. Scott Alexander contrasts the pharmaceutical industry with the unregulated chair industry, pointing out that chair prices don't suddenly spike 400%. He then details how FDA regulations and patent laws prevent competitors from entering the EpiPen market, despite the drug being off-patent and inexpensive to produce. The post highlights several failed attempts by companies to create generic versions of EpiPens, and how lobbying by the manufacturer Mylan has helped maintain their monopoly. Scott uses an extended analogy comparing the situation to a hypothetical government-controlled chair market to illustrate the absurdity of the current system. Shorter summary