<story><title>The Economy</title><url>http://blog.samaltman.com/the-economy</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>gautambay</author><text>i prefer universal essential services (healthcare, education, etc.) over a guaranteed basic income.&lt;p&gt;with basic income, you run the risk that the receivers spend it on shiny objects (especially in an economy like ours with rampant consumerism) instead of things that benefit them and their families long-term.&lt;p&gt;of course, what constitutes &amp;quot;essential services&amp;quot; can be the subject of a lengthy debate.</text></item><item><author>sama</author><text>oops, i accidentally published an earlier draft.  i added a bit more of my thinking here--my sense is that it would probably lead to less waste than current systems.&lt;p&gt;i&amp;#x27;m also not sure it&amp;#x27;s the right approach, but i haven&amp;#x27;t heard any better ideas yet.</text></item><item><author>klunger</author><text>He just suggested a basic income for everybody.&lt;p&gt;I just wanted to point this out in case people missed it when skimming.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>roc</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;i prefer universal essential services (healthcare, education, etc.) over a guaranteed basic income.&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;If we believe in the market&amp;#x27;s ability to efficiently find the path forward, identifying &amp;quot;essential services&amp;quot;, even if it were possible, is wasteful at best and more likely counter-productive over time.&lt;p&gt;Twenty years ago we&amp;#x27;d have locked in home phone service and missed internet.  10 years ago we might have locked in cell service, but missed mobile data.  We&amp;#x27;d have propped up &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; products, at massive profits for the benefactors, for years beyond their relevance, instead of allowing the market to evaluate and react to changing conditions.&lt;p&gt;And while we might agree that it&amp;#x27;s &lt;i&gt;logically possible&lt;/i&gt; for efficient and effective government to correct mistakes like those, the &amp;quot;money is speech&amp;quot; reality in the US gives such outsized power to lobbying interests that even an optimist has to rate effective &amp;quot;steering&amp;quot; of any definition of &amp;quot;essential services&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Never mind the basic question of whether it&amp;#x27;s at all desirable to &lt;i&gt;force&lt;/i&gt; a youth from an underprivileged family to &amp;quot;buy&amp;quot; government-guaranteed education, instead of allowing him to spend even a fraction of the equivalent on a laptop, smartphone and developer tools -- or a 3d printer and amazon hosting services.  Or even allowing him to look outside the box of lobbiest-approved education providers,  and allowing him to &amp;quot;spend&amp;quot; his assistance on developer conferences or workshops or online learning or just moving to another town that has a better local program.&lt;p&gt;Would some people inevitably spend a guaranteed income poorly?  Of course they would.  They also sell food stamps for cash -- at 50% of their face value -- to make their bad decisions regardless of what we might prefer.&lt;p&gt;It isn&amp;#x27;t worth the cost to try to enforce &amp;quot;essential services&amp;quot; spending at the micro level.  It&amp;#x27;s too rich a target for corporate lobbyists to &lt;i&gt;define&lt;/i&gt; approved services at the macro level.  And at the economic level, there&amp;#x27;s little reason to believe it will give us better outcomes.</text></comment>
<story><title>The Economy</title><url>http://blog.samaltman.com/the-economy</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>gautambay</author><text>i prefer universal essential services (healthcare, education, etc.) over a guaranteed basic income.&lt;p&gt;with basic income, you run the risk that the receivers spend it on shiny objects (especially in an economy like ours with rampant consumerism) instead of things that benefit them and their families long-term.&lt;p&gt;of course, what constitutes &amp;quot;essential services&amp;quot; can be the subject of a lengthy debate.</text></item><item><author>sama</author><text>oops, i accidentally published an earlier draft.  i added a bit more of my thinking here--my sense is that it would probably lead to less waste than current systems.&lt;p&gt;i&amp;#x27;m also not sure it&amp;#x27;s the right approach, but i haven&amp;#x27;t heard any better ideas yet.</text></item><item><author>klunger</author><text>He just suggested a basic income for everybody.&lt;p&gt;I just wanted to point this out in case people missed it when skimming.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ef4</author><text>Ah, the classic paternalistic argument. It&amp;#x27;s deeply appealing to many people&amp;#x27;s preconceptions. But a growing body of experimental results call it into question.&lt;p&gt;When you actually conduct the experiment -- a randomized controlled trial where you give some poor people cash and others in-kind services, the cash group outperforms.</text></comment>