Contra MR On Charity Regrants

An angry, well-evidenced rebuttal of a Marginal Revolution post echoing the Trump/Rubio claim that 'only 12% of USAID money goes to recipients' (implying the rest is pocketed). Scott: USAID isn't a charity, it funds charities, so 0% goes 'directly'; the 12% is what flows through foreign orgs, with 88% through US orgs for compliance, anti-corruption, and Congressional-mandate reasons; ~30% overheads are normal and necessary; Cowen's own Mercatus runs ~40% overhead and also regrants (to 'Vibecamp LLC'); PEPFAR has saved millions with 0-2% unexplained expenses. He frames the 'pocketed' narrative as a lie meant to redirect earmarked aid to cronies, defends the charity workers as heroes, and asks Cowen to correct the misleading post.

Quality 71 · Strong. Strong band. A clean, forceful, well-sourced correction that explains how USAID and regranting actually work and lands the Mercatus-hypocrisy point, with real moral clarity. Strong rather than higher because it is a narrow, topical response to one post.

Claude’s paradigm shift 35 · Slight. Slight. A factual correction and defense of regranting; no new idea.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. A clean, forceful, well-sourced correction of the '12% of USAID money reaches recipients' claim (USAID funds charities, so 0% goes 'directly'; ~30% overheads are normal; the Mercatus-hypocrisy point). Conceptual influence within discourse, a narrow topical response, no material change — low RWI.