[AnthonyMouse]

That's assuming the alternative thing actually benefits from the money. You mention education, but we've already seen that education spending has a threshold past which spending more money no longer improves outcomes (it just inflates prices), and we're already above that level of education spending.

And even if we weren't, it doesn't follow that moving resources from one place to the other is the right choice. When you have two things that both produce benefits exceeding their costs, you're better off to do both of them.

[Jyaif]

> It doesn't follow that moving resources from one place to the other is the right choice. When you have two things that both produce benefits exceeding their costs, you're better off to do both of them.

Yes, in an imaginary world we can invest in all the good things at the same time.

In the real world you have a limited amount of resources, so you can't do everything at the same time without borrowing money. But guess what, borrowing money is moving resources from one place to an other.

[AnthonyMouse]

The world in which you can invest in both drug research and education is not imaginary. We in actual fact already do both of those things at the same time.