Scott shares an open letter urging the NIH to spend $5 billion in allocated but unspent research funds before the fiscal year deadline. Longer summary

Scott Alexander shares an open letter to the NIH about unspent research funding. The letter, which he was asked to share by anonymous authors concerned about retaliation, urges NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya to follow through on his commitment to spend $5 billion in allocated funds before the fiscal year ends on September 30th. The letter emphasizes the bipartisan support for NIH funding, the economic returns on research investment, and the importance of keeping pace with China's increasing research spending. Shorter summary

Scott argues that debates about prioritizing Americans over foreigners in the PEPFAR controversy miss the point, as cancelled foreign aid money wouldn't automatically fund effective domestic programs but would instead be spent much less efficiently. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques recent discussions about PEPFAR, a successful AIDS program in Africa that was briefly paused. He argues that debates about whether we should prioritize Americans over foreigners miss the key point: money saved from canceling highly effective programs like PEPFAR wouldn't automatically go to equally effective domestic programs. Instead, it would likely fund much less effective initiatives or get lost in general federal spending. The post explains how government spending tends to be inefficient, and argues that even if you value American lives more than foreign ones, the effectiveness gap between PEPFAR and likely alternative uses of the money is so large (around 100x) that you would need to value foreign lives at literally zero to justify canceling it. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes Javier Milei's presidency in Argentina, noting mixed results in economic indicators and policies, with some successes in budget cuts and inflation reduction, but increased poverty rates. Longer summary

This post analyzes the performance of Javier Milei, Argentina's libertarian president, focusing on key economic indicators and policies. Scott examines government surplus, inflation, poverty rates, rent control abolition, and Milei's approval ratings. He notes that Milei has achieved a government surplus through significant spending cuts and has reduced monthly inflation, though yearly inflation figures remain high. Poverty has increased under Milei's administration, but there are slight signs of economic improvement. The abolition of rent control has led to increased housing supply and lower prices. Milei's approval ratings, while declining, remain relatively high compared to other world leaders. Scott concludes that while Milei has fulfilled his promise of short-term economic shock, it's too early to judge the long-term success of his policies. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against criticism of billionaire philanthropy, citing its efficiency, positive impact, and ability to support important causes that governments often neglect. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues against criticizing billionaire philanthropy, presenting several points: 1) Criticizing philanthropy more than luxury spending incentivizes the wrong behavior. 2) The potential good done by philanthropy outweighs concerns about inequality. 3) Billionaire donations often receive more scrutiny than praise. 4) Government spending is often less efficient and focused on important causes than private philanthropy. 5) Philanthropy can support pluralism and fund important work the government won't. 6) Centralized government control risks a single point of failure. He concludes that the immense good done by philanthropic efforts, such as saving millions of lives, outweighs concerns about democratic accountability or inequality. 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 criticizes misleading media coverage of 'The High Quality Research Act', clarifying its actual content and arguing for a more nuanced debate on NSF funding priorities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the media coverage of a new draft bill called 'The High Quality Research Act'. He points out that many news sources have misrepresented the bill's content, falsely claiming it would ban peer review or destroy the concept of facts. Scott clarifies that the bill actually aims to change the grant funding review process and prevent duplicate funding applications. He acknowledges legitimate concerns about the bill potentially restricting funding to 'practical' research, but argues that the debate should focus on whether the current NSF grant criteria need improvement, rather than on exaggerated claims about the bill's effects. Shorter summary