Scott analyzes why people support government-funded foreign aid instead of donating voluntarily, examining and critiquing several theories including virtue signaling, coordination problems, and time-inconsistent preferences. Longer summary

Scott examines why people support government-funded foreign aid rather than just donating directly, pushing back against the 'other people's money' argument. He considers and critiques several explanations: the force multiplier theory (seizing opponents' money), virtue signaling through voting, psychological free-riding on knowing problems are solved, coordination problems requiring bundling, transaction costs that make voluntary systems impractical, and time-inconsistent preferences where people's long-term values differ from their moment-to-moment impulses. Scott concludes by proposing a thought experiment where tax forms include an opt-out box for foreign aid, predicting most people wouldn't use it, suggesting the issue is more complex than simply wanting to spend others' money. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to Tyler Cowen about USAID funding, correcting his own previous claims about overhead costs while maintaining that Cowen's criticism of USAID was misleading and potentially harmful. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Tyler Cowen's criticism of his previous post about USAID funding. He addresses several points: whether Cowen endorsed Rubio's claims about USAID waste, the true nature of overhead costs in USAID-funded organizations, and the broader debate about foreign aid effectiveness. Scott shows that actual administrative overhead in major USAID partners like Catholic Relief Services is much lower than previously thought (around 6-7% rather than 30%), admits his mistake on this point, but maintains his criticism of Cowen's original post as misleading. He argues that USAID's work is predominantly focused on essential humanitarian aid rather than wasteful programs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes Tyler Cowen and others for misrepresenting USAID's funding model, explaining how regranting through other charities is both necessary and effective despite seeming inefficient to outsiders. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes a Marginal Revolution post by Tyler Cowen about USAID funding, where Cowen suggests that only 12% of funds go to recipients. Scott explains that this is misleading because USAID is not a direct charity but a funding organization that works through other charities. He details how the grant-making process works, defends the overhead costs, and points out that Cowen himself runs an organization (Mercatus Center) that does similar regranting. Scott particularly criticizes Trump and Rubio for misrepresenting these programs as wasteful, noting that programs like PEPFAR have saved millions of lives and have very low rates of unexplained expenses. Shorter summary