The Trade Effects of 3D Printing [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

The Trade Effects of 3D Printing [pdf]

documents1.worldbank.org

38 pointssearchableguy17 comments

There's a running assumption pervading organizations like the World Bank: that trade is ALWAYS better. More trade leads to a better world.

Truth is, I think, more complex than that. Trade is usually better, but increases the overall fragility of the system, as now I rely on a third party for something that I need and cannot produce myself.

So, assuming that the conclusions on this paper can be extrapolated to any 3D printing product (printed product?), it may not be such an issue. It may increase the options available.

The advantages to high levels of trade are huge though... it accelerates social progress, reduces poverty, decreases war, etc.

The fragility is certainly bad during situations like natural disasters, but this is way easier to mitigate than the former issues.

Summary of what the article is about:

> The good where 3D printing is most common is hearing aids. Nearly 100 percent of all hearing aids consumed in the world are produced using 3D printing.33D printers transformed the hearing aid industry in less than 500 days in the mid-2000s, which makes this product a unique natural experiment to assess the trade effects of this technology. In particular, we use the example of hearing aids to examine the effects of 3D printing on international trade and to study how trade patterns have changed as production technologies shifted.

Spoiler: 3D printing of hearing aids increased trade.

Somehow, shortening supply chains is seen as a bad thing.

I know right?

I feel like it runs counter to all contemporary economics but the actual progress of technology is the singularity like merger of products and manufacturing into a self replicating machine that in addition to copies of itself can make consumer goods.

What lies after the event horizon of initial creation of such a device is anybodies guess but I have a feeling that if we as a species survive it people will forever look at the economic period that we're living in now as an absurd, kooky time filled with phrenology like beliefs about how an economic system should be.

"You mean all your possessions were made by people you never and shipped to you often to be used once then thrown into a big hole in the ground or burned? You're making stories up Grandpa!"

If we had very cheap manufacturing without human labor then wouldn't things be even more disposable? Maybe we would care so little about consumer goods that we won't even call them possessions but just get whatever we need out of the machine when we want it and dump it when we're finished with it. That seems to have been the trend for a long time already.

Perfect recyclability would mean that all things would have a value as parts, feed stock for something new. That would make consumer goods more prone to age imho. If someone is going to pay me for my old computer I am more likely to replace it all the sooner.

One of the interesting developments today is that the average home shop is gaining in capability. Things that were previously only possible by well capitalized factories are now within reach of average of people.

> The hearing aid industry is unique in its virtually complete and rapid switch from traditional manufacturing to 3D printing

lots of medical products. invisalign. physical shape is an important aspect of biocompatibility and 3d printing is really good at this it turns out.

> discomfort and cost had been among themost frequent reasonsfor rejecting the use of hearing instruments

> Hearing aid usage also increased dramatically

In my idea world there would be small fabs locally where you can get parts and replacements fabricated on demand allowing for higher level of repair ability of mechanical parts for consumer and industrial hardware.

Injection molding machines in China beg to differ.

Smaller, easy to use machines everywhere are OK with that.

Those are great if you want 5 million of something, all exactly alike.

Not so good if you want 5 of them, or even 5,000 of them, or if you want each one to be slightly different.

Edit to expand slightly:

People will, in general, prefer having a (thing) to not having it, even if that means that their (thing) is exactly the same as the one millions of other people have.

BUT... they will also prefer a (thing) that is uniquely theirs to one that's the same as everybody else's. In general, people are even willing to pay a premium for this. How much? That depends on the item, but in any case 3D printers lower the cost barrier for a custom item.

I am not surprised that hearing aids (cited in the article) are a popular use case. That's exactly the kind of thing that benefits from customization -- everybody's ear shape is somewhat different -- and the small amount of plastic means that one can be printed quickly and relatively cheaply.

Shoes and clothing in general are other good examples. It's widely accepted that custom-made shoes and tailored clothing are superior to off-the-rack, but most people can't afford clothes that are cut specifically for them (at most, a guy might have an off-the-rack suit altered by a tailor, but bespoke tailoring is beyond the means of most people).

How does the clothing industry change when people can afford custom-made clothes? Quite a lot, I'd imagine.

So basically, instead of (re)distributing production, it just reinforces existing inequalities ("comparative advantage was reinforced") and makes low income countries even more dependent ("developing countries increased their imports") on high and middle income ones.

The 3D printing revolution is dead on arrival.

Since when has a technology failed to be revolutionary because it increases inequality?

> it just reinforces existing inequalities ("comparative advantage was reinforced")

This is a misunderstanding of comparative advantage. Reinforcing Absolute Advantage would increase inequality. Reinforcing Comparative Advantage makes the goods produced by the less efficient trading partner more valuable to the other(s).

Getting sudden exposure to world bank documents can be shocking. At least they are honest. They are basically saying to folks across the spectrum, "3d printing is better for everyone, there are no negatives" is their message.

3d printing is just a smaller more flexible factory, great for making things qty 1-n where n makes sense. For a lot of applications, buying a 3d printer and making a single part pays for itself. Health orgs will be able to fit their own medical devices made on their own inhouse printers, anywhere in the world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com