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