Hacker News Reader

Comment by marshray | Hacker News Reader

It is a very interesting possibility.

My concern is that if this technology truly is revolutionary but does not carve out a sufficiently large piece of the pie for the traditional parasites (e.g., distribution moguls and IP lawyers) it could very easily be outlawed. (Probably not effectively, but note the number of people who are in jail today for replicating a plant.) This will be hard since 3D printing potentially increases wealth with much less involvement of money. So how will they take their slice of pie?

If it really is a disruptive technology, there will be plenty of cases where the economic advantages eliminate someone's job. I'm old enough to remember discussion about US factory workers being replaced by robots. Factory automation turned out to be far from the main threat to US factory workers' jobs.

View on HN

"main threat to US factory workers' jobs."

There is no such thing as threat - a factory worker who cannot compete MUST be selected out, and replaced by something that is cheaper. This is for the betterment of all, at the expense of the said factory worker. This is called reality and those who choose to prevent efficiency is only retarding progress.

Now, of course, the said factory worker isn't obsolete - they should "skill up" and do something that currently isn't achievable via low paid labour, or machines. This is where value is derived, and should be encouraged (ala, re-education).

Personally, I think increasing productivity is a huge reason to implement some kind of Guaranteed Minimum Income.

This guy puts it better than me: http://www.xamuel.com/ten-reasons-for-guaranteed-minimum-inc...

Also, I think it's a bit cruel to expect former factory workers to just "skill up" and become programming ninjas or whatever. Not everyone is born with the same cognitive assets.

That idea sounds pretty far-fetched. 3D-printing is another step closer to the ideal of self-sufficiency; similar improvements in agriculture and energy production all put us on the path toward resuming a kind of modern homesteading, allowing us to eliminate the role of institutional middlemen in meeting our basic needs.

Apart from the dubious economics of a Guaranteed Minimum Income, such a program would maintain the role of institutional intermediaries in our lives just as self-sufficiency again becomes possible.

> put us on the path toward resuming a kind of modern homesteading

Future homesteads will lose bids for natural resources because big actors will be able to exploit these resources more efficiently due to economies of scale. I'm for basic income.

Are there reasons why the idea of a Guaranteed Minimum Income could not be implemented using a peer-to-peer system? Would middlemen be strictly necessary?

How do you mean?

I don't really know (yet?), but it seems to me that what you need is a network of nodes, such that each node automatically downloads a common amount of money from a pool once a month. That pool would be filled by the system subtracting a percentage from the gross income of each node. Is it really necessary that those calculations are done by a central unit - like the IRS -, or could they be done in a distributed manner, SETI@home-style?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com