Scott Alexander argues that, contrary to his reputation as an isolationist, Trump's statements suggest he may be more likely to engage in military interventions than Clinton, who represents a more predictable foreign policy approach. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines claims that Trump is an isolationist and safer choice than Clinton regarding foreign policy. He argues that Trump's statements and past positions suggest he may be more likely to engage in military interventions. Alexander analyzes Trump's statements on ISIS, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, finding many hawkish positions. He discusses Trump's criticism of NATO and international trade agreements, suggesting this could destabilize the post-WWII peace. Alexander then examines Clinton's positions, arguing they are more moderate and predictable. He concludes that while Clinton's foreign policy isn't perfect, she represents a lower-variance, more stable choice compared to the unpredictability of Trump's potential actions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that military interventions can potentially be a cost-effective way to help foreigners, contrary to a Slate article's claim. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a Slate article arguing that military interventions are an expensive way to help foreigners. He argues that comparing interventions to GiveWell's top charities is flawed reasoning, and presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of the 2011 Libya intervention. Using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as a metric, he calculates that the Libya intervention cost about $65 per QALY, which is slightly more cost-effective than donations to the Against Malaria Foundation at $75 per QALY. Scott emphasizes that both figures are extremely low compared to typical healthcare interventions. He concludes that military interventions can potentially be very cost-effective for humanitarian goals, though they come with risks and unpredictable consequences. Shorter summary