The review examines arguments for increased government secrecy, suggesting that transparency may lead to negative outcomes and that a return to more opaque legislative processes could be beneficial. Longer summary

This book review examines Brian Kogelmann's argument for increased secrecy in government, particularly in legislative processes. The author argues that transparency, while intuitively appealing, can lead to negative outcomes such as increased influence of special interest groups and political grandstanding. The review explores the historical context, theoretical justifications, and potential drawbacks of secret deliberation, ultimately suggesting that a return to more opaque legislative processes could improve political outcomes. Shorter summary

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 criticizes a NYT article on sugar industry influence, arguing that such bias is common across food industries and doesn't justify completely reversing nutritional advice. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the New York Times article about sugar industry influence on nutrition research. He argues that while the sugar industry did sponsor biased research, this is common practice across all food industries, including the dairy and meat industries which promote pro-fat research. He suggests that the NYT article overstates the significance of this one instance of sugar industry influence, and that nutrition science has been shaped by an ongoing 'war' between various food industry lobbies. The post cautions against overcorrecting based on this single revelation and emphasizes the complexity of nutrition research and its funding. 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

The post explores the contradiction between studies suggesting elite influence on policy and those indicating money's limited impact on politics, offering several hypotheses to reconcile these findings. Longer summary

This post discusses two seemingly contradictory political science findings: one suggesting that elite opinion strongly influences US policy, and another indicating that money has little impact on politics. The author presents several hypotheses to reconcile these findings, including the possibility that legislators are themselves elites, that elites control cultural institutions, or that money influences politics through lobbying rather than campaign contributions. The post critically examines each hypothesis, considering their strengths and weaknesses in explaining the apparent contradiction. Shorter summary