The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons - <AUTHOR> https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/rise-hypersonic-weapons-1095 <comment><USER2> > would be able to knock out a target's nuclear capabilities fast enough and > thoroughly enough to pre-empt any attempt at a retaliatory strike.

Did the author completely forget about nuclear subs?

<comment><USER3> I believe the author was implying countries like North Korea or Iran who might develop a nuclear warhead and possibly ICBM technology but _not_ have the other options (air or sea launch).

That said, a sub at missile launch depth is susceptible to a hypersonic weapon from above. With sufficient mass, even a kinetic only impact from the surface could take out those subs. A nuclear depth charge can take out subs down to their crush depth although I don't know if you could deliver it on a hypersonic glider.

The defense for this stuff is lasers of course. An interesting technical weakness of hypersonic devices is that they are on the edge of their energy/drag limits (they are already struggling to travel through the soup of the atmosphere at those speeds). If you can ablate their leading edge with a laser to change their drag profile they may self destruct through atmospheric friction.

<comment><USER4> >That said, a sub at missile launch depth is susceptible to a hypersonic weapon from above.

If you know where it is. If you do, the sub has already failed as a weapons system. We have all sorts of weapons that can take out subs if we know where they are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's nothing 'hypothetical' about them like the article says, both Russia ( [http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-secret-hypersonic-nuclear- mis...](http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-secret-hypersonic-nuclear-missile- yu-71-can-breach-existing-missile-defense-1987590) ) and China ( [http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-successfully- tests-7000-mph-d...](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-successfully- tests-7000-mph-df-2f-hypersonic-missile-says-pentagon-source-1557121) ) have operational hypersonic missiles. Whether they would use them when conventional weapons work just as well and are cheaper is debatable but they already have them.

<comment><USER6> The article you cite for the PLAN system states that it completed it's 7th test flight. This is not operational.

For instance the F-35 only recently became "operationally capable" \- but it has been flying since 2006.

<comment><USER7> And on the flip side, the P-51 Mustang took 149 days from placement of the order to the flight of the first prototypes (and the near-immediate order of a run of 300 further aircraft for evaluation).

I'm not disagreeing with you that a test firing is vastly different from serial production, but the F-35 is the poster child for an unreasonably protracted and dysfunctional development process. It's a massively complex system with a dozen different major players all trying to pull it in conflicting directions with dozens of contractors all trying to make sure they diffuse the project across all 435 Congressional districts.

The overall implication that because the F-35 is a trainwreck that it's not possible to ever develop a weapons system on a fast timeframe - _that_ I disagree with. The fact that we are dysfunctional does not make everyone else so.

<comment><USER6> Oh for sure - F-35 is a dog and I could have picked a better example, and I would even support your point to the extreme with:

[http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/holy-smoke-gm-army- turn-o...](http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/holy-smoke-gm-army-turn-out-new- hydrogen-car-in-9-months/)

They went from rfp => selection => 1st prototype in 9 months.

Obviously, a car is a bit different than a 5th gen fighter. But still.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm not sure these are as destabilizing as the article makes them sound. If Russia and China didn't already have the capability of destroying US carrier battle groups, I could see the sense in the argument, but Moskits are cheap, capable of Mach 3, and easily able to swamp antimissile defenses when launched en masse. (And they can carry a nuclear payload, too, not that it's likely they would in such a scenario, nor would they need to.)

<comment><USER9> A hypersonic vehicle can travel much faster than that. We're talking about the ability to strike targets anywhere on the globe in minutes. That IS destabilizing. The example of striking carrier groups in the pacific is only the tip of the iceberg.

This race amounts to a global game of chicken, and the stakes of a mistake are world war. Let's hope cooler heads prevail.

On the other hand, there are some pretty amazing applications of air breathing hypersonic technology. You could use it to launch equipment, satellites and people into space much more efficiently (air breathing means you don't need to carry an oxidizer!). Or imagine being able to fly from NY to Hong Kong in an hour! This kind of tech is not as imminant as the article is implying. We've only barely demonstrated small air breathing hypersonic vehicles as feasible (see X-51 and X-43). The X-43 was a crude initial test that demonstrated flights of only up to 12 seconds. The X-51 managed to go for 6 minutes. Scaling this up to a transportation vehicle will pose a significant engineering challenge.

<comment><USER10> Not if you run the simulations. A city or three might get nuked in a tit-tat- tit exchange, but total war isn't currently likely. During the 60s and 70s there was the _chance_ we could just nuke all their nukes at once and maybe they'd get London, NY, or Washington, but we'd survive. A total strike is no longer even a first reach option because even if they level us and somehow cripple our nukes or kentic weapons we can just unleash a bioweapon on everyone and it's payback game over. I look at these weapons in the same way. There might be a couple dozen million deaths from an exchange that starts with them, but after some tense phone calls things will deescalate.

What I worry about is actors smaller than a well funded nation state getting weapons like these, and for that we need intelligence.

<comment><USER2> Thats not how the chain of command would actually work in a nuclear exchange. You are much more likely to go all in anyway.

<comment><USER10> Chain of command starts with the president. Look to how Moscow has acted multiple times when there were nuclear worries due to faulty equipment. Multiple times they waited until confirmation of a hit. Now thank goodness nuclear weapons haven't been used since multiple parties have had them, but had a strike actually occurred what do you think the response from Moscow would have been? Full military preparedness (obviously), including potential launching of a tit for tat response. But what do they have to gain from launching everything? For all they know some insane general in America launched the thing. If they don't see anything else coming why would they commit suicide by launching everything?

There is no benefit.

<comment><USER11> _A decade after the release of "Strangelove," the Soviet Union began work on the Perimeter system—-a network of sensors and computers that could allow junior military officials to launch missiles without oversight from the Soviet leadership. Perhaps nobody at the Kremlin had seen the film. Completed in 1985, the system was known as the Dead Hand. Once it was activated, Perimeter would order the launch of long-range missiles at the United States if it detected nuclear detonations on Soviet soil and Soviet leaders couldn't be reached. Like the Doomsday Machine in "Strangelove," Perimeter was kept secret from the United States; its existence was not revealed until years after the Cold War ended._

[http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything- in...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything-in-dr- strangelove-was-true)

<comment><USER10> The episode I'm referring to was _after_ 1985, with Boris Yeltsin in the early 90s. However Perimeter was designed or used, I'm sure the Russians didn't create a system that caused total war after a skirmish of a couple small nuclear weapons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think this article conveniently forgets to mention nothing hypersonic of sort will outrun lasers.

lasers can't track of course and range is limited by factor like atmosphere and earth curve, but still, thinking about an hypothetical future scenario hypersonic weapons would just get lasered down by automated point defences all the same as conventional speed ordinance.

<comment><USER13> To shoot down a missile with a laser, you need a segment of light about 30-50 cm long, so the target doesn't move too much whilst burning a hole in it. In that little segment has to be the energy of at least a .50 BMG, so 20k joules of energy. In a portable form that can fire repeately, reliably. That's doable, but not easily.

<comment><USER14> That's about one nanosecond of light. E.g. travelling 1000mph is about a foot per millisecond. I think your light could be 1000 times that long and still hit essentially the same point on the target?

<comment><USER13> Travelling 1000mph is about mach 1.3. Hypersonic is mach 5 to perhaps mach 15, if our space launch research goes well. The target has to travel less than about 5 mm in that time. A foot would schmear the light too far.

[Edit] OK, I've done a bit of calculating, and I think you're right. The laser pulse could be a maximum of about 175 meters long.

<comment><USER14> A foot of light is necessary if you focus on a millionth of a foot of target. A longer bolt is acceptable if tolerances are looser than that. And they probably are. 5mm is about 1000X larger than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This reminds me of Project Thor [1]. The idea was to drop tungsten rods from orbit on the target. It would also be a weapon that is very hard to defend against with similar implications to these hypersonic missiles.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment)

<comment><USER15> It's not really "dropping" them - they're in orbit and already not falling. You'd need to fire them backwards with a rocket engine (or railgun?) to deorbit. At that point, why not just fire them as a ballistic missile?

<comment><USER16> Faster reaction time, less obvious launch, and ability to attack from any direction (not just the direction that your bases and submarines happen to be in). There were also proposals to just launch nuclear warheads into orbit, for deorbiting in case of war, but they were banned by treaty because they were considered too destabilizing - as were partial orbital weapons, which just went into orbit for long enough to attack from unusual directions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm also skeptical about the targeting side of these "wonder-weapons". Going really fast against, say, an aircraft carrier, is almost more of a liability if you don't already know exactly where it is and how fast it's going pretty much before you launch at all - you don't have much time to detect it and change course to actually hit it, plus reduced ability to detect things through all of the air resistance heat you're generating.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think tying aerospace advances/research to only the military potential, and thereby banning it all, would be stupidly counter-productive, and ineffective. If we want spaceplanes, supersonic intercontinental flights, etc. this is where the rubber meets the road. A test ban treaty would be as wise, effective, and narrowly-focused as DRM is at preventing IP-violating file sharing.

</comment><comment><USER18> The article frequently mentions the agility of these hypersonics. Doesn't 'flies super fast' usually require 'flies in a straight line'? Do we have suitable materials for control surfaces that can withstand the drag/heat/pressure of an evasive, quick turn at Mach 5?

<comment><USER13> The SR-71 did it fine slightly above Mach 4. If you call taking a few states to make a turn evasive.

<comment><USER18> Requiring a few states to hang a left makes it difficult to both evade and defense hit a target, right?

<comment><USER19> Your attacker is going to have roughly the same problem turning as you do. Though an unmanned attack vehicle (missile, drone) isn't limited by physiological g-force limitations.

At some point though your airframe becomes airframes and flight dynamics change considerably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Once you get to the point that you can explode anything you want anywhere on the planet it doesn't make much difference if you can do it somewhat faster.

... and it is getting pretty obvious that being able to blow things up doesn't make much difference anyway in a political sense. Simple terror doesn't work anymore to bring people around to your way of thinking. All the people that can be simply coerced are gone now.

</comment><comment><USER21> This got me wondering, how low would the cost to reach LEO have to get for it to start making sense to use Falcon 9 + Dragon to deliver an SF team (e.g. commanders in-extremis force) to an objective?

Then that got me thinking about the reality of drop ships. Isn't that the next logical progression? I mean, currently we can put a battalion of paratroopers anywhere in the world with 48 hours notice. We can put a Ranger company anywhere in the world with 24 hours notice.

<comment><USER22> [http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/03/23/the_ulti...](http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/03/23/the_ultimate_cold_war_weapon_fantasy_ballistic_troop_transports.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Seems like we might want to address this and other threats by putting "dial a yield" nuclear devices on our missile defense weapons?

</comment><comment><USER24> How would one defend and/or re-configure carrier strike groups in a world filled with hypersonic missiles?

</comment><comment><USER25> > _However, hypersonic weapons do not need to be nuclear in order to be > disruptive, as demonstrated by the United States' focus on conventional > hypersonic weapons._

Does China and Russia believe that? It takes a few minutes to swap conventional and nuclear warheads.

If anything US is the leader in this new cold war.

<comment><USER26> It's very difficult to see a scenario where it makes sense to put a nuclear warhead on a hypersonic missile. The fact is, hypersonic missiles are dog slow compared to ICBMs. ICBMs though suffer from the tyranny of the rocket equation (most of the fuel they burn is used to push the rest of the fuel), so the mass of the warhead is a small fraction of the total mass of the rocket (for Trident 2 it's about 7%). The main problem is that ICBM's have to carry their own oxydizer, which is heavy. Cruise missiles get oxygen from the air, and this is a big deal. For a Tomahawk the warhead is 35% of the total mass of the missile. Now when you deliver a nuclear warhead (or a bunch), you don't care that much about the ratio warhead/total mass, since nuclear carries a lot of punch in a small package. And if you plan to start WW3, you might as well do it quick, no reason to use a (relatively) slow delivery vehicle, like a hypersonic one, when you can use an ICBM.

It's when you want to deliver conventional explosives that you care about how big your rocket is. It's one thing for the rocket to be 3 times as big as the warhead (Tomahawk) and another to be 15 times as big (Trident 2). The Tomahawk is really slow though, so the idea of the hypersonic is to be faster, at the cost of having a smaller delivery ratio. The fastest current cruise missile, the Russian-Indian Brahmos has a 12% ratio of warhead to total mass (if launched from an airplane, less if launched from the ground), and a speed of about Mach 3. What would be the ratio for a hypersonic weapon? It shouldn't be less than 7% (otherwise you keep it "simple" and use the Trident 2 design) and it's unlikely it will be higher than the 12% of the Mach3 Brahmos-A missile. It will be somewhere in between, and most likely not that disruptive after all.

<comment><USER25> Very informative. However my impression is that US version is ballistic missile with highly maneuverable shuttle as a payload. Article mentions it will be capable to hit anywhere on earth within 30 minutes.

It seems like very very expensive way of bombing terrorists.</comment></comment></comment>


Introducing Nintendo 1DS - <AUTHOR> http://www.nintendo1ds.com/

<comment><USER2> In case people aren't paying attention, this is at the bottom of the screen:

> *Not actually a real device or price. See dreams for details.

It's a parody, folks.

</comment><comment><USER3> My kids will absolutely love this. The only time they use the DS now is in the car. Being able to continue from the car on to the TV will make the fighting over the shared laptop lessen a little :]

</comment><comment><USER4> Excellent parody and a product idea Nintendo should totally pursue, honestly.

Well played, Pat Stewert, whoever you are.

</comment><comment><USER5> Had to check the whois first, nice parody!

</comment><comment><USER6> Where is the preorder button ?</comment>


Jupiter Rising: A Decade of Google's Datacenter Network [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2015/pdf/papers/p183.pdf <comment><USER2> Finally! Time to fly the flannel.. I built the first 3 generations described here starting in '04; it's awesome now to have something to point to, especially as FB has lead the charge on opening their own gear. And I'm sure it's going to make collaboration and hiring that much easier.

The secrecy was at first a universally-agreed necessity; in simplistic terms, we didn't want MSFT knowing how much money to throw at the problem, or even what the problem _was_. This was true (and surely still true to an extent) for all of platforms: it was always amusing to see public photo shoots at "google datacenters", which in reality were little more than a stack of google search appliances at a corp location.

The level of detail here is great and really sums up 10 years of a _lot_ of hard-earned findings. I'm thrilled pictures of the hardware are even included, that team is just top notch.

For anyone who isn't a Google or Facebook but has large or growing colo/dc network needs, check out Cumulus Networks. It applies a lot of the SDN ideas (think ssh/puppet-driven config mgmt for your switches as just the start) and topology possibilities seen here; doesn't hurt that JR did a brief stint on firehose :)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the kind words for Cumulus!

\- nolan

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I used to work at Google as well, and frankly I was so abstracted from all of this that it's absurd.

It's like finally reading how my car is an "intern-al comb-usti-on eng-ine" whatever that means.

</comment><comment><USER5> Neat to see where the "Pluto" mystery switch might fit in, now.

[http://www.wired.com/2012/09/pluto- switch/](http://www.wired.com/2012/09/pluto-switch/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Originally discussed at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9734305](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9734305) but this is the actual paper, which was just published.

</comment><comment><USER6> How much opportunity is there for this level of datacenter design to reduce power consumption? What are the trade-offs?

<comment><USER2> The real power savings come not from the switches themsleves, but from the application and scheduling architectures it enabled.

Having full cross-sectional bandwidth between _any pair of hosts_ means the bin packing problem is a lot easier. You don't need to (say) make sure your map reduce job is scheduled with one shard per rack because racks only have so much bandwidth. Any host on any rack will do. You can forget racks even exist.

This makes overall utilization of clusters more efficient (tighter bin packing), and the corollary is you don't need as many clusters and machines. (Not that has ever stopped Google from building more :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Amazing network infrastructure has always been one of my favorite hidden technical wonders behind Google. It's amazing how they handle so much data.

<comment><USER8> When you actually have to use it what's amazing is how much congestion and packet loss there is. On paper it looks like a zero-impedance source of data but in reality it barely keeps up.

<comment><USER9> What QoS are you referring to?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I did a brief stint replacing burnt out parts in a Google datacenter.

This paper is weird--like maybe they switched around the names of some things and didn't mention others.

Just an FYI.

<comment><AUTHOR> I used to work in cluster networking, before I became an SRE. Near as I can tell, no names have been switched around in this paper, and it covers all of the major generations of Google cluster networks up to a fairly recent point in time.</comment></comment>


RetailMeNot Sales Figures - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/16/retailmenot-adds-social-network/ <comment><USER2> extremely impressive, not from a technical point of view or anything, but this kind of profitability with a bare bones design and low overhead is quite impressive.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think its great, but they don't have a "moat" around their castle...

</comment><comment><USER4> 4 million in sales is not what they are making. If that number is true, then they are grossing somewhere in the $150K range a month. Still not a bad figure for such a small operation.</comment>


Elon Musk is getting serious about digging a tunnel under Los Angeles - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tunnel-plans-los-angeles-2017-1 <comment><USER2> If you're taking the time to build a tunnel, might as well put a subway in it. Come to NYC (or London or Paris or ....) and Chicago and see real subways are a much better use of building tunnels. If NYC, Boston, DC, SF, Philly, all have subways, why not LA?

It is a much greener solution than using electric autos which after all, must be charged with electric power which is often carbon-based.

Subways are also far faster than using automobiles during much of the day but especially during Rush hour. Much of the NYC subway system is powered by Hydro Quebec. As stated earlier, much of even electric autos are charged by electric power generated with carbon-based fuels (e.g., natural gas).

Building a subway in LA would have a much lower carbon footprint than building a tunnel for cars.

Trump comes from NYC, and while he probably doesn't take the subway, he might likely understand the importance of them.

<comment><USER3>
        If NYC, Boston, DC, SF, Philly, all have subways, why not LA?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_\(Los_Angeles_Metro\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_\(Los_Angeles_Metro\))

<comment><USER2> Well, that's great!

So why does Musk want to build a car tunnel? He should want to build an additional subway tunnel. The city of LA should be encouraging more transport that lessens global warning, not encourage it. As stated previously, much of the electric power in California (and elsewhere) is generated by carbon-based fuels, so electric cars are really adding to global warming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> LA's traffic problem is the sheer volume of traffic.

If you introduce another pipe, that pipe will immediately get saturated.

LA has a TON of infrastructure, tons of long, expansive 6 lane highways, HOV lanes, Express lanes, tons of wide boulevards with 2-3 lanes in each direction.

LA is massive on a scale people don't realize - it's not as crazy as when you go to Manhattan for the first time because it's not built up. But spend some time there and you will be impressed by how big that city is. Think of the suburb you grew up in - big parking lots, wide streets, strip malls.

LA is like a giant, oversprawled suburb with 16MM+ people in the metro area.

Not saying we should just say screw it and give up, but the answer here isn't more roads or highways or tunnels.

It's things like uber, public transporation, car shares, things that get cars off the road.

<comment><USER5> There are just too. many. damn. cars. Just run the numbers. In the LA area there are 16 million people. National average is 2 cars for every 3 people. That's over 10 million cars. If we take that an average parking space is 7 feet by 15 feet, that's 105 square feet per space. 10 million spaces is 1 billion square feet. That's 36 square miles. That's literally a square 6 miles on a side--just to park the cars once. There is probably 3 times that many spots in LA, when you consider that every place a car goes it needs a spot. That's over 100 square miles just to park cars. That's not even to drive them!

Get the cars off the road, get them the hell out of the city, take back that parking space and road space, and replace it with taxis, trains, subways, trams, bicycles, busses, and literally _everything_ else but cars. The last thing LA needs is another freeway, above or below ground.

<comment><USER6> This is also one of these situations where a picture is worth a lot of words: [http://wearetraffic.org/sites/default/files/images/Bike_Car_...](http://wearetraffic.org/sites/default/files/images/Bike_Car_Comparison.jpg). Depicted that way, one immediately and intuitively understands why 100 people in cars are so much harder to move than 100 people in other modalities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A problem in long tunnels, is that accidents brings nightmare scenarios [1]. This is one of the reasons why cars are loaded on trains in the Eurotunnel. I also hope they do proper traffic simulations that take into account the Braess' paradox.

My guess is that there are probably a host of other lower hanging fruits they may be able to take to reduce traffic before boring tunnels. One such thing is parking space markets, you wouldn't know, but a lot of the traffic in congested cities is actually caused by cars looking for parking.

Furthermore, In NYC, I believe traffic could be significantly reduced by simply enforcing violations for cars blocking intersections. At rush hours, some intersections on the roads leading to bridges and tunnels are constantly blocked by cars, trucks, buses etc.

A lot of the traffic can also be reduced by developing smarter traffic grids, where lights are not simply programmed on time intervals. And developing the unrealized potential of friendlier cities for bike.

In a lot of these ideas, the problems are not necessarily technical but rather governance.

Finally, self-driving cars will allow better carpooling and car-sharing.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc_Tunnel#The_1999_fir...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc_Tunnel#The_1999_fire)

<comment><USER8> Maybe the only cars which will be able to use these tunnels will be Teslas with autopilot that they're convinced will not have accidents?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> LA is building out subways and light rail. But it's definitely still too slow.

Since there's so much sprawl, it would seem that a spoke and hub system would be most likely what needs to happen, with a few hubs.

Imagine a mass transit vehicle that can hit 100+ mph between union station and LAX? The biggest thing to ensure is that once you exit LAX or wherever that spoke ends that there is infrastructure to hold that type of capacity.

Imagine, union station to LAX in 5-8 minutes. Elon's commute might be slightly longer as he would have to take a surface street from that hub to his end location.

Have the hubs at the densest areas and have spokes for them.

Santa Monica<->Sherman Oaks Santa Monica<->LAX LAX<->Union Station Santa Monica<->Union Station Union Station<->Pasadena Union Station<->Burbank etc. etc.

Each hop taking just a few minutes due to the speed and no stops in between.

</comment><comment><USER10> Honest question: How can he get all the required permits in such a short amount of time?

(Unless, of course, the usual processes are being overridden by a presidential order.)

<comment><USER11> I imagine there are two factors at play here:

1\. Since digging takes time, you really only need the permits where you are actually digging. So if you start on a piece of land you largely control, or can quickly get permits for, you could theoretically bore until where you need the next permit.

2\. For all these permits, you would apply for them in parallel, so you don't really need 100% of the permits for the entire length of the tunnel to start.

<comment><USER12> Theoretically, yes, but you wouldn't want to dig significant parts of the tunnel before you're certain to get the rights to finish it, either. Imagine negotiating with a land owner for the rights to dig the last 10 meters of tunnel, somewhere in the middle of already built parts stretching over kilometers. That owner probably will be able to get 50% of the completed tunnel in exchange for those rights.

<comment><USER13> That's what eminent domain laws are for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I can't find the article. But it had a great solution. In California, we have a system for paying tolls automatically. Called FasTrak, you install a device in your car and when you pass a toll booth it deducts the amount required. Super easy.

The idea was that we should implement a micro toll system for all freeways. During peak hours the charge is maybe $2, during off-peak there's still a charge but it's maybe $0.50. Even major streets would have small tolls of 5-10 cents. This helps in two ways. Many people are weirdly resistant to paying even small fees to things (see $0.10 bag tax). and would maybe just stay home. This hopefully would encourage people to ride public transportation, which is now funded by the tolls.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, it's a great solution if you don't value your privacy. /s

<comment><USER14> I mean "big brother" is already watching everyone via "freeway traffic cameras" Public transportation is what I'm pushing for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Every time I visit LA I wonder how the rich and famous survive there. The traffic is so maddening, I just can't think of any "Pro" that would counter the Con of traffic. And I live in OC, where traffic is bad enough already.

<comment><USER17> If you're sufficiently rich/famous, you can probably afford a helicopter or some other aircraft to bypass road traffic entirely.

At the very least, rich/famous people can likely hire personal drivers to worry about that stress for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nobody's mentioned the San Andreas fault yet. Surely that's a pretty good reason not to fill a tunnel with people?

Or is a tunnel actually a much better place to be during an earthquake?

<comment><USER19> "Earthquakes tend to have the biggest effect on the surface, like waves on water. That's why LA can have a (lame, but getting better) subway."

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/824300186834898945](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/824300186834898945)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is about as audacious as the great wall of Mexico. In mastering Trumponomics, Musk has demonstrated himself to be a quick study.

He announced 'The Boring Company' on Twitter a day after the inaugral Trump- tech billionaires meeting in Novemeber, and the announcement fell flat in every corner of the internet I peruse, in spite of Musk's rabid fanbase. People thought it was a joke. It's apparently less of a joke now.

<comment><USER21> I was thinking the announcement might be more aimed at Trump than anything else. There's no way he can just just digging in a month - you'd need heaps of permits etc. But if pres Trump latches on they could push legislation through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> In the US, major infrastructure projects are routinely much, much more expensive [1][2][3][4][5] than anywhere else.

Without details, I'm skeptical of how Musk intends to solve this problem. Of course, he doesn't have to. If he merely intends to absorb as much PPP/government spending as possible -- like partially does now with SpaceX -- then it could still be a sound business model. This works out rather well for the likes of other infrastructure companies like Fluor, Skanska, Strabag, and many more -- companies that are hardly household names, but form consortiums to construct just about every major infrastructure project we have today.

I wouldn't put it Musk to try to explore using as minimal human labor as possible and deploy completely automatic Tunnel Boring Machines, enabling him to underbid everyone and win contracts. Then with a few projects under his belt, and a few construction journals writing about his company's innovations, his company will achieve name recognition on a level that few construction companies have. This will confer prestige to projects he's worked on, potentially making it an non-negligible selection criteria, especially in countries where prestige and demonstrating being on the cutting-edge is held in high regard.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u- s-i...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s- infrastructure-costs-so-much) [2] [http://www.motherjones.com/kevin- drum/2013/06/how-much-bang-...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin- drum/2013/06/how-much-bang-do-we-get-our-infrastructure-buck) [3] [https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r...](https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us- rail-construction-costs/) [4] [https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comp...](https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comparative- subway-construction-costs-revised/) [5] [http://theweek.com/articles/449646/why-expensive-build- bridg...](http://theweek.com/articles/449646/why-expensive-build-bridge- america)

<comment><USER21> You'd need some legislation to let a private company crack ahead and build without the usual political and union restrictions. It seems silly that this sort of construction costs 3x as much as in Spain say.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't think people fully understand yet the potential of self driving cars and AI traffic management to massively increase the density and flow rates on highways.

I'm fairly certain it will be quite easy to double the density while simultaneously quadrupling the existing flow rates - with much better improvements coming later.

Which means right now we are at the "peak delay" point for the next hundred years or so.

</comment><comment><USER24> As a Bostonian for much of my life the thought of any sufficiently large tunnel project is cringe inducing.

Maybe he can call it "The Bigger Dig"?

Edit: Context for anyone who doesn't get the joke [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig)

<comment><USER25> ... and traffic is still horrible.

<comment><USER26> _... and traffic is still horrible._

Compared to _pre_ -big dig days? It's not even close. Boston traffic has mostly normal rush hour periods now. I can get from Somerville to Braintree in 30 minutes during peak periods. That same trip could have taken 60-90 minutes during the elevated artery days. It was often faster to take 128 and go around Boston to get from the north shore to the south shore rather than take 93 though Boston.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If Musk can get the permits for this sort of project in any reasonable time frame he's even more of a genius than we thought.

I _suspect_ , however, that the main objective for this plan is to get in with Trump and his apparatus. If Musk makes himself known as one of the president's prized elite job-making businessmen, it generates another layer of defense against the various attacks SpaceX and Tesla have been under recently.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Self-driving electric cars are especially well suited to tunnels. Self driving means higher capacity (higher speeds and less space between cars), fewer accidents, narrower lanes (better tolerances than humans), and electric means less tunnel ventilation needed. Cost per passenger mile should be considerably lower than existing tunnels. Even better if you can bring technological deflation to tunnel construction.

<comment><USER26> _electric means less ventilation needed_

Ventilation isn't just for exhaust fumes, it's also needed for fire fighting. A tunnel geared for self-driving electric fans won't make much of a difference there (look at subway tunnels for example).

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> so when this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation#Science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation#Science) says "It is not possible to teleport macroscopic objects such as human beings, ..." does it mean impossible per laws of physics or that we can't do it with today's technology? Because if it's the latter, let's say it costs 1T to develop the tech to do so, I'm betting the ramification would be > 1T to the overall economy almost overnight (communication and transportation are the biggest drivers of several things, one of which is the economy, IMO).

</comment><comment><USER29> So awesome. And maybe the tunnels will only allow self-driving electric cars :)

</comment><comment><USER30> How does a tunnel eliminate traffic? That doesn't make any sense.

<comment><USER31> I'm not a civil engineer but I'd say it works because you distribute the traffic?

Before building the tunnel:

\- city = 100% traffic

After building the tunnel:

\- city = 50% traffic

\- tunnel = 50% traffic

Edit: seems to be a "traffic flow" problem, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow)

<comment><USER32> Isn't this similar to adding lanes to freeways? I was always under the impression that actually makes traffic worse, like this article suggests: [https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced- demand/](https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/)

<comment><USER33> It's more like adding a new road. You can't "change lanes" between the tunnel and the freeway.

<comment><USER32> I'm a complete novice when it comes to road infrastructure so I really have no idea. But I always thought the argument was expanding road capacity just caused more people to consider using it and it always naturally expanded to the point of congestion regardless of size. I'd think a road plus a tunnel would have a similar effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Will the tunnel go from Space X to Elon Musk's house?

<comment><USER35> How did you guess!?! Industrial espionage I say!

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Elon isn't very clear about what he is going to use these tunnels for. I would not be surprised if he was thinking bigger than cars and put a hyperloop in it. Digging the tunnels will take a lot of time so in theory he could wait for a working version of a hyperloop.

</comment><comment><USER37> What about all the oil under there?

<comment><USER37> For reference: [https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/08/the-urban-oil- fiel...](https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/08/the-urban-oil-fields-of- los-angeles/100799/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Probably a joke? I saw a 60 Minutes(?) episode a few decades ago about how people in LA(California?) loved their cars. There was no way you were getting them out of their cars and into mass transit.

At least they're finally adding some mass transit with the light rail. Give it 3 or 4 decades and LA will be livable without a car.

[Update]

I wasn't implying that Elon was going to build mass transit. Simply pointing out that people are paying for poor choices made decades ago.

Since, I've already been downvoted to the max, I can simply point out that stupid decisions made decades ago by won't be fixed by building more roads. In fact, it's probably a really bad idea.

[http://laist.com/2016/08/11/la_hasnt_gotten_smog_this_bad_si...](http://laist.com/2016/08/11/la_hasnt_gotten_smog_this_bad_since.php)

<comment><USER39> Isn't this article about "car tunnels", not public transport transit tunnels?</comment></comment>


Consumers win in the EU case against Microsoft & IE - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/business/global/17msft.html

<comment><USER2> Not sure anyone wins from this. I don't see why we need government sticking up for free products. People have been choosing Firefox for years now and converting their friends. What's the point of forcing the issue through law?

I'm not sure why Microsoft is even making a web browser right now. I doubt there's a business case for it. So what exactly is anyone hoping to achieve with this?

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't it be nice if we could develop for standards compliant browsers which had the minimum of bugs, and there was innovation in this market?

Microsoft's bundling of IE meant they had no incentive to produce a good product, and their lack of development has caused stagnation in the industry. Free markets are supposed to produce the highest quality goods at the lowest possible price. It obviously didn't work here, either because the free market theory is flawed or there wasn't a free market.

The EU is trying to fix this.

<comment><USER2> Right but browsers are a case of the free market working. It turns out no one wants to pay for web browsers but people like building them so we have open source browsers to fill gaps in commercial offerings. There aren't any serious barriers to entry for web browsers so we have a free market.

<comment><USER3> Thought experiments:

1) What would have happened if IE had to be bought, or at least downloaded and installed?

2) What if Microsoft had formed a new company to develop and distribute their browser, and this company was expected to make a profit?

3) What would have happened if Netscape wasn't forced to make their browser free because Microsoft subsidised the development of IE using profits from unrelated software?

I suppose the underlying question is whether bundling the browser with a monopoly OS allows a free market in browsers, and if it didn't allow a free market, what should the remedy be?

<comment><USER4> "What would have happened if IE had to be bought, or at least downloaded and installed?"

Downloaded using what, exactly?

Shipping a modern OS without a Web browser would be like shipping it without a file manager.

"What would have happened if Netscape wasn't forced to make their browser free because Microsoft subsidised the development of IE using profits from unrelated software?"

Browsers were free before IE came along. Why did Netscape think they could base a business on selling something that users could get for free?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Under terms of the European settlement, Microsoft will...send ballot screens ...to 100 million users of Windows XP, Vista and 7 operating systems in Europe who have set Internet Explorer as their main browser._

Why only to those who have IE as their default? If they really want to be fair, they should let _everybody_ get a fresh choice about which browser to use.

I mean, if it makes sense to let current IE users choose to go to Firefox or Chrome, why doesn't it also make sense to let Firefox users choose to go elsewhere (even to IE!)?

<comment><USER3> The aim is to remedy Microsoft's abuse of their Windows monopoly position, which resulted in a large number of IE users. Therefore, offering only to IE users is fair as well as practical.

<comment><USER5> _The aim is to remedy Microsoft's abuse_

While I agree that this is, in fact, what's happening, I submit that this is the wrong approach.

The UE folks believe that they've identified a market failure in the web browser market, ostensibly resulting from MS's unique position as OS supplier.

Is the better approach to addressing this failure to (A) punish the entity that is benefiting; or (B) try to change the dynamic to alleviate the market failure?

Punishing Microsoft doesn't ensure that the market will continue to operate properly in the future.

It seems to me that if the goal is to fix a market failure, then the solution is to ensure that OS suppliers can't force browsers onto people. They would want to be sure that everyone gets to make a choice, regardless of the browser they currently use. In fact, I'd think that this should apply regardless of OS as well. That is, Linux distributions that bundle Firefox should be required to include a browser-chooser as well, so those Linux users can also make a choice.

<comment><USER6> _if the goal is to fix a market failure, then the solution is to ensure that [this particular OS supplier] can't force [its own browser] onto people._

If you had phrased it this way, I would have agreed with you. I don't think the EU cares (or should care) if Microsoft required Firefox, or even what any other OS supplier required.

Their remedy seems to address the right problem, from my perspective. If the EU believes that there is a market failure, then they probably also believe that those who are already running something other than IE are already aware of browser choice. It is only those people who are running IE that may be living in ignorance of other browsers.

It feels like a very targeted remedy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _"On the ballot screen, consumers initially will be able to choose from Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, AOL, Maxthon, K-Meleon, Flock, Avant Browser, Sleipnir and Slim Browser. The first five, which are the most widely used, will be prominently displayed, and the others will be shown when a user scrolls sideways on the screen."_

That's quite a list, I don't even recognize some of them.

I wonder if we'll have to start testing sites in 11 different browsers (not to mention different versions of each).

<comment><USER8> I wonder if this will result in more large companies creating browsers. If it takes around 2% marketshare to get on the 'main' list and you can get significant free advertising from it in Europe, perhaps it's worth Yahoo or Amazon creating their own browser, even if it's just a rebranded open-source browser or an IE shell created with minimal investment.

<comment><USER9> I doubt it would work, Chrome's adoption has been phenomenal for its first year and due solely to the techies who adopted it with open arms because they all _knew_ why it was good.

Every techie on the planet is going to see through a Firefox or IE shell/clone. It won't get the market share and loyalist fans that Firefox and Chrome gained, so it certainly won't be hitting the top spot like Chrome did within a year of release.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Web developers around the world fall to their knees with tears of joy and relief.</comment>


UProxy – route connections to the Internet through friend's computers - <AUTHOR> https://www.uproxy.org

<comment><USER2> This feels a little like a honey pot. If some bad actor is tracking you (and trying to find out where you go), they probably know who your friends are (or can get that list very easily, whether legally or illegally), and then you all get charged/tracked together. In fact, you've made it easier to track you all together by making the ties explicit.

It seems like this is only really obscuring traffic/protecting privacy if traffic was shared with anonymous people, but that already exists, and it's called TOR.

<comment><USER3> A better use case might be "Have a friend in the US proxy your [web streaming provider] traffic."

Protection from this: [http://i1.wp.com/www.inferse.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/04/...](http://i1.wp.com/www.inferse.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/04/hulu-blocking-vpn-users-in-us.jpg?resize=620%2C380)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> At a high level, one of the main goals in uProxy is to lower the bar for indirecting your traffic.

It isn't meant to provide anonymity, or to resist targeted attacks. If you're wondering where to place it, there has been some discussion on how to make it a first hop 'pluggable transport' in the tor browser bundle. Mostly though it's meant for making indirection a thing that is approachable for the majority of users who aren't at a stage where they need tor.

The part I'm most excited about is that social network support is built in a reasonably extensible way, and is quite close to supporting a much wider range of methods than what has made it into the current version.

</comment><comment><USER5> It is a nice idea. I absoultely do not trust VPN providers, or external proxies, however this would feel more secure for most people. But don't forget, almost any method can be exploited, since you do not really control your packets flowing through ISPs. This project is helpful for my family which lives in Turkey and my sister lives abroad, and it is a tool that they can use. I normally setup a ssh based socks proxy to my VM when I need, but lets face it this is much more easier to use when you have a nasty ISP or blocking going on. As said on their website:

> uProxy is not an anonymity service

</comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me kind of like Triangle Boy from 2001. That was a CIA funded project. I wouldn't doubt that they could be up to their old tricks again.

</comment><comment><USER7> Something like this could become an easy way for non-technical users to VPN their laptops and such while using open Wifi, but I'm kind of skeptical of doing it via a browser plug-in.

</comment><comment><USER8> With friends like these ...</comment>


Trapsleds - <AUTHOR> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149792179514439&w=2 <comment><USER2> Delightfully context-free

<comment><USER3> I thought it was self-explanatory, but let me provide a little context: a NOP- sled can be used to increase reliability in software (especially for ROMs exposed to hard radiation). It can also be used in various attacks. The letter describes how the author has built in a replacement for NOPs at the assembler level that should make software more secure without adverse effect.

Unless you were making a joke about context-free replacement.

<comment><USER4> I was under the impression that NOP sleds were inserted by the attacker when they can't quite be sure where exactly their code will begin executing. They just transfer execution to about the region the NOP sled will be, and then slide through to the start of the payload.

Modifying NOP sleds at compile time is not going to defend against this.

<comment><USER5> OpenBSD uses W^X aka DEP aggressively. In fact, for OpenBSD 6.1 a program can't even disable W^X unless the binary was mounted on a filesystem with the wxallowed option.

Thus, attackers can't insert NOP sleds. They have to rely on the sleds already in the code. From what I gather from the announcement, toolchains often insert NOPs as padding, inadvertently creating NOP sleds. This is an attempt to fix that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Imho, there are quite a number of opcode different from 0x90 that are in fact treated as NOPs making this mitigation of low result</comment>


Javascript and the brain: Why Javascript is the future of programming languages - <AUTHOR> http://grenzgenial.com/post/2414488498/javascript-and-the-brain-why-javascript-is-the-future <comment><USER2> Up-voted because I have interest and experience in AI, but the stuff about the brain is just nonsense. What does it even _mean_ for the brain to have types (or _not_ to have types, for that matter)?

> The brain is a (sophisticated) computer! It's a big processor.

If you're a behaviorist, sure. But many (many) people don't see it this way. I'm not just talking about philosophers here, but also doctors, biologists, and chemists. How do you even define _computer_ in such a context? I would suggest some reading of John Searle (see _Mind: A Brief Introduction_ ) to clarify some ideas here. Sure, we tend to hear stuff like "the brain is a parallel computer!" all the time, but these statements don't really mean much and are often sensationalized.

The analogy breaks down even worse from there. Comparing the JS event subsystem with fired electrical impulses in the brain? I mean, come on.

</comment><comment> bun-neh Whether or not the brain has any inherent structure for "types" is irrelevant. Types are a mechanism for providing reasoning about the correctness of code. At the very least they are a notification to the compiler or interpreter as to the function (and possibly the correctness) of various operations.

And besides, we segment and type the world all the time. Its a natural behavior to define an instance of a object and to reason about that object in isolation.

A lot of these points are really short-sighted. The reasoning behind eliminating code-as-data (note, not really self-modifying code) has more to do with efficiency than with clarity.

If you do accept the premise of the article then Javascript is not the only language for which it applies.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's the same kind of argument made about ruby being 'developer friendly.' My hunch is that the brain is so much more complex than _any_ programming language - that drawing out likenesses to one over the others is overdoing it. It's like saying 'zucchini is like pizza because it can be cut into round slices like pepperoni.'

One point that was missed is that all those curly brackets look a bit like neurons :)</comment>


New Design for Nyan Cat - <AUTHOR> http://nyan.cat/

<comment><USER2> No music. Ordinarily I would say "design flaw", but in this case it's really design perfection.

</comment><comment><USER3> Works for me. I like the selection of 20 or so nyan cat options.

<comment><USER4> You mean the "pick language" menu which doesn't seem to do anything...?

Hmm, well the page looks generally pretty fsck'd up, so who knows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't see why this is on the HN front page.

</comment><comment><USER6> Won't load.</comment>


Why Wikileaks will be the death of big business and big government. - <AUTHOR> http://www.tnr.com/print/article/politics/80481/game-changer <comment><USER2> In the case of Big Business, it can't happen soon enough.

I have to note that this is the sort of thing that the "cypherpunks" foresaw back in the early 90s. I'm not sure this is the form in which they foresaw the death of big governments and big business, but crypto certainly enables the whole Wikileaks thing.</comment>


How "killing it" is killing Startups - <AUTHOR> https://sanctus.io/how-killing-it-is-killing-startups-dfabd7803039#.hmeej07b7 <comment><AUTHOR> Hey Guys - I've written a new post which might cause some healthy debate

If you've ever been to a startup drinks/networking event, pitch or demo day - you'll know only too well that absolutely everyone is "killing it" or "crushing it" (maybe even "smashing it")..

Yet, we all know that building a startup just isn't like that and I think this culture where everybody claims to be doing really well and "fine" and "ok" is not only disingenuous, but bad for your Mental Health.

Have a read and let me know what you think</comment>


Finland considers basic income to reform welfare system - pierre-renaux http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33977636 <comment><USER2> Basic incomes have always been an interesting idea, appealing to a lot of smart people from radically different economic-political camps. There are some potential massive wins on long term unemployment that come from eliminating incentive issues, some answers to the "living wages" and other positive rights problems. Less bureaucratic micromanaging of people's lives. There's a reason it hold attention on HN, it's a real interesting idea. But…..

Basic income is the type of idea that is very, very hard to implement within our current (possibly any) political systems. There is very little room for compromise, half measures and gradualism. It does not lend well to caveats exemptions, and design by committee.

One of the big selling points is that basic income is funded largely by _replacing_ different welfare state institutions: unemployment benefits, child benefits, housing subsidies, state housing, pensions… This allows (A) A big enough basic income (B) big savings on welfare institutions running costs, (C) the simplicity needed for a clean re-write of incentives.

Where do the "efficiency savings" come from? Largely they come by cutting salaries associated with managing a welfare system. Can a government reduce public sector employment to that extent?

The danger for any country implementing this is that once they get into the political procee, they will chop and compromise and water down the idea until it is just another item on the big list of ingredient in the social welfare soup €212.13 per month that you qualify for while keeping everything else that exists.

Reforming the tax system and the welfare system as radically as required in a short time is a tall order. Maybe the Finnish can pull it off. They have a good track record. More broadly, I expect that this would have a high failure rate.

The best chance (IMO) is for very a small country to try it first.

<comment><USER3> The problem with a basic income is that for it to be close to enough to live off, it'd be very very expensive — way too expensive. Giving everyone in the US enough to be above the poverty line, say $12,000 (which is hardly enough to live off in many areas), would cost $3.8 trillion, which is what the _entire_ US federal budget is now.

So, people with disabilities and people who are unemployed would be left worse off, with an amount they can barely live off. Not exactly the situation we want after enacting our utopian basic income program.

The only way around that would be to give people with disabilities and the unemployed more money. But then that means you can't eliminate the welfare institutions needed to identify them and cut them checks.

<comment><USER4> There are additional problems:

1\. It's not going to be an amount barely above the poverty line. If it's implemented "correctly" it needs to be enough to do away with all the other welfare programs. Think way, way higher than $12K per person per year.

2\. With less revenue coming in, guess who's going to be hit with higher taxes? All those suckers working to make a marginally higher income.

3\. If the BI is sufficiently high (think in the $45K range), there will be a lot of people leaving their jobs to live a life of leisure and avoid having their income taxed at a >50% rate. I know I would.

This utopian idea is like every other: sounds great on the surface, may even work reasonably well at a small level, but doesn't scale. Human nature is what it is.

<comment><USER2> BI alone is by definition the poorest you can be. That's never going to be nice. It's almost certainly never going to be $45k. So long as money motivates people, people should still be motivated to have more than the poorest.

OTOH, BI does not disincentivize recipients from working, like current schemes do.

The specifics vary by place but almost everywhere unemployment benefits recede rapidly when you are.. employed. If you are disabled but manage to work part time, that can be used to invalidate your disability claim.

The whole point is to get more people working, and make it worth their while. If BI results in fewer people working, it has failed.

<comment><USER3> The benefit will be universal, but then you have to pay for it with increased taxes. So the increased marginal rate will disincentivize people from working.

<comment><USER5> With BI, You will never be in a situation where you will be poorer for earning a dollar you just won't be an entire dollar richer.

<comment><USER3> We could scale back benefits more gradually than we do today. That would be a lot cheaper than giving everyone a guaranteed pot of money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article alludes to the fact that you remove marginal disincentives to work by doing something like this. Many existing systems have some form of means test, which in practice results in very high effective tax rates.

Once we decide we want to support people on low incomes, there's a question of how the best way to do that is. The Nordics especially have built up enormous bureaucracies that in themselves cost a lot to administer various handouts and benefits. It might make more sense just to cut a cheque to everyone.

<comment><USER7> What could be great about basic income is that you can safely fire a lot of bureaucrats without harming them. Some of them might even welcome the change from being paid to do meaningless job to being paid for literally nothing.

<comment> bmir-alum-007 Purpose, or keeping busy at a minimum, is a tentpole of avoiding depression... even if it were seemingly "busywork."

<comment><USER8> People tend to want to work, really. But to your point, many people can't find work that pays the money they need to survive, so they become depressed. Also, people often lose their jobs.

There have been several studies/deployments that convince me that your worries are unsubstantial in practice. Really great resource: [https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index#wiki_that.27...](https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index#wiki_that.27s_all_very_well.2C_but_where.27s_the_evidence.3F)

<comment> bmir-alum-007 Disclaimer: I'm stupid broke, live in a van and take a highly-effective antidepressant, so I might have a little authority on this subject. ;)

Depression is terrible (anti-social, self-destructive, painful, etc.) but useful when it's grounded in an existential crisis... it makes people reflect on themselves and think about what else they can do or change.

They're not worries, they're concerns. Also, that resource doesn't list a single successful, large-scale deployment. Finland is _considering_ it. (The US will never, ever have such a fanciful thing because the plutocracy prevents it, even with Bernie 2016.)

And another concern: if people don't earn money themselves, the tendency is to _waste_ , in all regards. This tends to reinforce learned helplessness, even farther away from the brutal reality of life/business/nature.

<comment><USER9> "And another concern: if people don't earn money themselves, the tendency is to waste, in all regards."

I have not observed the same.

My impression is that the trend is we, people, like to waste when we don't have to pay, but if the money come from our accounts, we start to get careful, independently how the money arrived to our account. People would not like to waste their money even it's from a basic income.

<comment><USER10> The motive for wasting is that the money-giver might want to see your bank account balance before giving. Not having savings is generally a requirement for receiving welfare after unemployment benefits have run out. It's something basic income would do away with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is great. One of the main reasons I think political progress is so slow is because its near impossible to experiment with any new ideas. Few countries can just scratch something and say ok that didn't work lets try something else - because 10s of millions of people are already working in or dependent on said system. There are however a handful of countries in the world that can actually do this, because of the wealth and relatively small populations they have. Finland is one of those, so this is exiting.

The same problem exists in city planning. I'm sure civil engineers could design much more environmentally friendly and efficient cities, free of cars and with optimal transit, waste, and housing systems. But you always have an existing city where millions already live and work, and you have to have 20/30 year plans to get anything changed.

Its like trying to build a new piece of software but having to mold it out of a 20 year old monolithic legacy app where everything is interconnected and you have to maintain full backwards compatibility.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't "know" if any of this is a good idea, but I'm glad to see it at the top of HN & elsewhere, where people can start to consider different ways of dealing with a changing world economy. We need to allow ourselves to consider new ways of thinking about work, welfare and income

<comment><USER13> Things like this have been posted quite often lately (some cities in the Netherlands are also starting small-scale experiments, and a rather high basic income was proposed in Switzerland a few months ago; I think all of those were posted here). I'm all in favour of a basic income (or at least of testing whether it works), but I wouldn't actually dare post here about it in fear of creating an overload...

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The problem in those countries is taxes and social contributions. You need to make 10 in order to bring home 5, that kills work, completely. Now the basic income, so basically we want the State to manage even more of the economy. If past experience would prove this effective, then OK, but it just proves the opposite!

Let me do some back of the envelope calculations for you. In Europe we pay around 40% of income tax. On top we pay at least another 8% for pension, which we will never see, and another 8-10% for health insurance, which is not great at all. On top of that, companies have another 30-40% of cost, _on top_ of the bruto salary of an employee in taxes and similar to pay to the state. Bottom line: more than half of your cost to the company goes to the government.

It's just incredibly bad. If you have a 10% unemployment the most effective way to help people is to bring that down to, say, a 3%. That will help most definitely. But for that to happen you need to bring down the cost of labor, which is just too high.

And don't let me start with pension. Europe is basically starving an entire generation, you don't see it now, you will see in 30 years when the young of today will start to go into retirement age. There will be no money to pay a real pension to everybody. You know how much you need to have a very comfortable pension? At a 6% rate, about 500 euro a month for 40 years. That's it, that's all you need. Right now we are paying close to this amount for a public pension, will we see that money? Absolutely not.

Bottom line: they have to fix the economy. That's the only long term solution and the only way to bring people out of unemployment and poverty.

<comment><USER15> > If past experience would prove this effective, then OK, but it just proves > the opposite!

Can you cite some examples? I'm interested, because I seem to read a lot about how experiments with basic income actually tend to work out very well. (It certainly does in Alaska, although that isn't much money[0], as well as other examples[1] cited in this thread.)

> Europe we pay around 40% of income tax. On top we pay at least another 8% > for pension, which we will never see, and another 8-10% for health > insurance, which is not great at all. On top of that, companies have another > 30-40% of cost, _on top_ of the bruto salary of an employee in taxes and > similar to pay to the state.

I don't know how much you earn, or where you work in Europe, but I have never paid this much. Income tax and social security (including NHS contributions, so all my health insurance) in the UK was never more than 30% of my salary. It's about the same for me in Germany right now, if anything a little lower.

Maybe you're in a really wealthy income bracket, though, in which case -- congratulations?

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Permanen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Permanent_Fund_Dividend)

[1]: [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba- povert...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-poverty- experiment-called-a-success-1.868562)

<comment><USER16> If you are in the UK, 50k a year (above average but honestly, if even remotely close to London, not that much) will bring you a tax bill of around 38% (19k) if you consider employee NHS contributions ( data from [http://www.listentotaxman.com/50000](http://www.listentotaxman.com/50000)? ). So you are already at 38% and you have council tax (probably another 2k or more a year) plus VAT (21% or something?) on stuff you buy. I don't remember other taxes I paid while in the UK but these were the big ones. It isn't hard to get to the end of the year and see that you(+ employer) paid around 50-60% in taxes.

I live in Portugal, and if I consider VAT+income tax+social security contributions (self employed so I pay both parts or approx. 33% in social security) and ignoring other extra taxes (property, road tax, etc) 62% or so of the money I earn goes to the government (this was for 2014, my accountant did the math). I could probably get this lower with some creative accounting I guess.

<comment><USER17> That's the marginal tax rate. It's not your effective tax rate.

<comment><USER16> Sorry, can you explain the difference? When I was in the UK that was basically what I paid and never got anything back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> bmir-alum-007 Food for though:

raw cost for a _below_ -poverty annual subsidy of $12.5k to all adults in the United States:

209,128,094(&) * 12,500 = 2.6 trillion USD/year

That's equal to about _66%_ of the 2015 federal budget or _15% of 2015 GDP_.

Would that make it affordable or unaffordable?

Notes:

& [http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/demographic.html](http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/demographic.html)

<comment><USER18> It would make it impossible unless you dramatically slash Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the military.

Every time basic income comes up, the one thing persistently avoided is running the budget and taxation numbers needed to support it (and there are endless excuses raised for why that discussion is avoided).

$2.6 trillion (basic income) + $600 billion (military) + $1.2 trillion (SS) + $1 trillion (M/M) = $5.4 trillion, and that's before you get into all the other costs of government. Throw on another $400 billion in other mandatory spending costs, and another couple hundred billion in other discretionary spending items.

$6 trillion is the minimum out of that, just for the Federal Government.

Now throw in $3 trillion for local and state.

$9 trillion in total government costs out of an $18 trillion economy. Pretty obvious what would happen to that system. And it's why nobody ever wants to discuss actual numbers.

<comment><USER19> > And it's why nobody ever wants to discuss actual numbers.

I do. I want to talk about actual numbers because I think it'll be interesting to work out what might or might not be affordable. But I get rather frustrated that people either provide no numbers or do what you've just done and multiply the basic income amount by the total number of people and go no further.

You're making the assumption that everyone gets $12.5k more post-tax. That's not what many people would propose. There's also a reduction in the number of benefits and other programs that need to be funded (in the UK, anything above £4000 would eliminate the need for job-seekers allowance and several other benefits). SS is $1.2T, but some portion of that would be covered by BI.

The money also doesn't evaporate, one of the arguments in favour of large scale wealth redistribution like this is the people you distribute it to are the ones who are most likely to spend it.

It's an extremely complex issue, and both those saying "everything would be wonderful" and "X * Y = $$$ is too much" are doing it a disservice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Canada tried something like this in the 70's, it worked.

[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba- povert...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-poverty- experiment-called-a-success-1.868562)

[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-mincome-experiment- daup...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-mincome-experiment-dauphin)

</comment><comment><USER21> You remove the marginal disincentive to work at the low income end. This is good.

However you add a large incentive to give up work at the higher end.

As an example, I own a house in london. I'm by no means rich but I have a fairly decent income and significant savings. Enough that if I downsized my house and lived frugally I could support myself for 10-15 years.

That's not enough to retire on. If I was to receive £4-5 free income a year though, it would make enough different that my saving would last 20 years or more and I'd be able to give up work now.

There might be a relative small number of people in my situation, but together we probably pay a great deal of tax that would be lost.

I think it is this that dooms any such scheme.

<comment><USER22> _There might be a relative small number of people in my situation, but together we probably pay a great deal of tax that would be lost._

You've made a basic error in your assumptions - you're assuming that when you quit your job ceases to exist. It doesn't. Someone else would do it instead, being paid what you're paid, and paying the tax that you pay. So long as the number of people leaving the workforce to live on their basic income + savings is smaller than the number of currently unemployed people then the tax receipts wouldn't change. In fact, with the consequent savings on employment benefit, the amount of tax to spend on services would go _up_.

<comment><USER23> You're assuming that the pool of unemployed workers would have the same skills and abilities as the early retirees, many of whom would be in the most productive phases of their careers. There may not be anyone who can fill the job _and_ justify the same pay. If unemployment rates decrease the availability of skills drops off.

<comment><USER22> I'm not suggesting that unemployed people do the jobs of the people who leave the workforce - just that _someone_ does it, and someone moves job to do their job, and so on, until eventually an unemployed person gets a job. There might be people who are _really_ hard to replace, but they're so unusual that they're not really worth considering when you're talking about national policy.

No one could reasonably suggest that a nation should base their welfare policy ideas on whether or not _a few thousand people_ will be hard to replace if they retire.

<comment><USER24> No one could reasonably suggest that _only_ a few thousand people would opt to retire early if every adult had an automatic right to a sum in the region of the present basic state pension.[1]

There's nothing particularly unusual about the OP's circumstances, and they made a good point in that a BI would be particularly attractive to asset-rich people who had paid off their mortgages even whilst poor BI recipients struggled to pay rent without their housing benefit

[1]a touch under £6k per year in the UK, which is certainly in the ballpark of BI proposals, as well as probably not enough to replace other subsidies in may parts of the country.

<comment><USER22> _No one could reasonably suggest that only a few thousand people would opt to retire early if every adult had an automatic right to a sum in the region of the present basic state pension._

Suggesting that people will decide not to work if you give them £6k a year is a ridiculous strawman.

The basic income (and the pension for that matter) aren't high enough to buy _any_ significant assets. There's an assumption with a pension that you've already bought a home, you're not going to invest in a new car, that you're unlikely to want the latest expensive gadgets (I'm not arguing that the assumption is _right_ , just that it's there). With a basic income being the equivalent the only people who'd use it to 'opt out' of the workforce are those who already have the assets they want and have decided they won't ever want new or better ones (a vanishingly small number who could probably opt out of the workforce _now_ if they wanted to) and people who have decided they don't want those assets in the first place (a much larger number, but still very small in the grand scheme of things).

Every single person who has £6k x years-they're-likely-to-live could opt out of the workforce _right now_ by your reckoning. It just doesn't happen. There's no reason to believe it would suddenly become popular if a basic income were enacted.

<comment><USER24> > Suggesting that people will decide not to work if you give them £6k a year > is a ridiculous straw man.

Around 1.2 million people over the pensionable age live on _only_ the state pension (and that has other qualification requirements). That's a little more than the number of people over 60 actually in work.

Sure, 40 year olds typically have a little more energy than 70 year olds and quite probably a few years of mortgage payments left, but I still think you can safely add more than a few thousand early [semi]retirees if you open it up to everyone and remove all qualification requirements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Although there seems to be enough support by MPs for basic income so that it realistically could be trialled, I wouldn't be holding my breath. The government has too many other things on its plate.

Finland is suffering from a period of slow growth and rising unemployment. The three immediate reasons are the economic troubles of euro area, the decline of Nokia, and the trade sanctions against Russia, one of Finland's largest trading partners. Add to that the quick rise of wages until 2008, the aging population, an expensive social welfare system, and the inability to devalue the local currency, and the troubles seem very hard indeed.

The government's main goal is to adapt the Finnish economy to the new reality, by spurring growth and improving state fiscals. It has many options on its plate, basic income being one of them.

Currently, however, the government's focus seems to be in short-term. The current hot topic is the so-called "social contract", which is essentially government trying to make a deal with labor unions to increase the length of work week from 37,5 hours to 40 (or a similar reduction in wages). This plan, perhaps not so surprisingly, seems to be failing. After it is buried (probably within the next few days), the government may try "fiscal devaluation", i.e. moving tax burden from companies to citizens. And then some painful public finance cuts. And after that, who knows what?

Regarding long-term efforts, other pending reforms have more support than basic income, but still not enough agreement to be hammered out quickly. The two most important ones are health care reform and the change of municipality responsibilities. Both of these have been in talks for years without signs of being resolved.

All this is made more difficult by the fact that the rising populist party 'The Finns' is in government for the first time, still learning how it wants to play the game.

In summary, it isn't clear when the government will move from short-term considerations to longer-term restructuring, and if the basic income will still be on the plate then.

Edit: grammar.

</comment><comment><USER26> Finn here. Some figures to put the floated numbers of 500-1000 euros/month in perspective:

Average salary, before tax: 3150 EUR

Average salary, after tax: ~2000 EUR

Market rent for one bedroom apartment in central-ish Helsinki: 1000 EUR

In other words, 500 EUR/month is a tolerable budget for a skin-flint student living in subsidized/free accommodation, but it's going to be pretty tough going for an adult, and completely prohibitive for eg. raising a family. 1000 EUR would be more realistic, but obviously also twice as expensive to implement.

<comment><USER27> > completely prohibitive for eg. raising a family

But if it's an unconditional guaranteed income, i.e. each member of the family is making it, then it shouldn't be a problem. For example, a single mother with two kids would get her 500 EUR/month plus 500 EUR/month for each kid, bringing in a total of 1500/month for the family. While this certainly isn't massive, with a part-time job and being frugal, it should enable her to pay the bills.

<comment><USER18> How would 1,500 euros enable her to pay the bills, if rent alone is 1,000? It wouldn't be even remotely close after all life expenses are added in.

<comment><USER28> Thats why he said part-time job too.

<comment><USER27> Yes, the "with a part-time job and being frugal" was a critical part of my post that @adventured clearly missed. Thank you for highlighting it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> As long as this cuts off all other social security payments, like for housing and child care etc. So if you are poor then you have to live cheaply. It's ridiculous that the only people who can afford to live in downtown Helsinki are the very rich and the unemployed... "They have to live near where the work is!", what a joke...

</comment><comment><USER30> I wonder how this interacts with savings, credit and location. Knowing that you are guaranteed an income would mean that people could spend all their income. It would also mean that it would be a lot less risky to offer certain level of credit. Lastly, it would allow people to go and live where life is cheaper.

It seems to decouple many complex concerns.

</comment><comment><USER31> Isn't basic income really pretty dependent on closing borders? So you have a basic income ... here come the stampedes of African and East European low skilled immigrants looking to get a basic income without having to do anything.

Essentially, also how do you move people from basic income to being ambitious to pursue more than basic income. People become complacent when they become comfortable with their circumstances. I don't think that is appreciated enough in this discussion. People really need to be kept slightly "on their toes".

If you look at the USA, that is precisely what happens here, for better or worse and even to an extreme and unhealthy manner. We have extreme poverty relative to other societies we want to consider ourselves to be peers of, but at the same time we have these unachievable dream motivations in the form of grotesquely wealthy people in the form of CEOs, athletes, movie stars, musicians, etc. that 99.99999% of people will never ever get even close to reaching.

</comment><comment><USER32> Rather than a guaranteed income, I think a better system would be a guaranteed jobs. This would work better than basic income as there are 2 type of unemployed (let's leave out the disabled for this discussion). Those that want to work, but can't find work. And those that simply don't wish to work or conform to a work environment. Given this why not have a 2 tier unemployment offering.

The first is a guaranteed job. Ideally covering areas that don't compete with non-essential open market business. So things like looking after parks and helping out in nursing homes. General community benefit programs. This way if someone is out of work the government guarantees minimum wage at X hours a week to keep people in work and not go into that unemployment rut where after extended time they find it hard to re-enter the workforce.. The remain a productive member of society for their own self-worth while working gives the opportunity to upskill or show they are productive people while looking for better paying work. And given they are already working there is not the problem that taking a job earns them little more than being unemployed anyway.

For those that are capable but refuse to work they are offered a bare minimum living environment for pure humanity sake. Something like a bed in a dorm and 3 hot meals environment but they lack personal luxuries until they are willing to be productive and this keeps costs are kept at a minimum. It also solves the view of people who feel like unemployed are all bludgers as it separates those that are victim of circumstance vs unwilling to work.

This way we don't punish people who are willing to be productive but the economy does not have capacity to offer employment, and minimise the cost and incentive for people to abuse the system.

I'm sure it's not that simple in reality but having a one size fits all seems limiting. Something down this route would better allow for people in differing circumstances.

<comment><USER33> India has this, and it involves moving dirt back and forth between ditches. Pointless and soul crushing.

<comment><USER32> I'm not sure the point of this comment. Is it just for anecdotes sake? If not it sounds like you have a problem with the type of work being offered in this particular example. Not the concept. One (arguably) bad example doesn't make an entire concept void.

<comment><USER33> If you tie benefits to work for moral reasons, but have no real work for them to do, then you'll just end up with pointless labor. Consider many people on welfare are not very employable anyways, their labor is not valuable or in demand. That is why they need welfare in the first place!

The British Victorians solved this problem with treadmills. But eventually this archaic thinking was replaced with more enlightened solutions to poverty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Great, the Finns can have our 100.000+ refugees that comes to us in Sweden.

<comment><USER35> I wondered this too. If a small country implements basic income, they really will have to put strict limits on immigration. If the whole world was doing it, it wouldn't matter as much.

<comment><USER36> There are already a lot of restrictions on immigration in rich countries for this exact reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Finland has an aging population and too low birth rate 1.8 / little migration to support the elderly. The need to fix the 0.2.

<comment><USER26> Unconditional basic income is certainly not going to hurt, as it'll make one parent staying home to take care of the kids a lot more feasible financially.

<comment><USER18> With 10% unemployment, and the last eight years consisting of a non-stop stagnation / recession (Finland has had zero net GDP growth since 2007) - <AUTHOR> would removing workers from the labor pool not crash the economy even further?

Finland is very likely to see its GDP stay at 2007 levels for at least a 15 to 20 year period of time. There's nothing indicating growth or recovery is inbound (things have only been getting worse the last three years). I don't see how it can all be paid for with a broken economy.

Unless the premise is to drop concern for total economic output, and strictly focus on redistribution to raise the median. That seems like a huge leap of faith, unless you can get tax revenues to climb with greater economic growth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Has anyone tried to implement basic income using crypto-currencies? Is it feasible?

</comment><comment><USER39> In response to the deleted comment because I had already typed it out when the parent was deleted:

> proof that unemployment benefits incentivizes staying at home

I have yet to see conclusive evidence for this "people are lazy" argument. Humans aren't rational actors in a vacuum (except psychopaths). There is social pressure to contribute to society and "carrying your own weight" \-- just ask anyone who's ever spent a non-trivial amount of time unemployed.

BI can be more than a replacement for current welfare but it aligns very nicely as a replacement for the current systems of unemployment benefits. Of course there are people with special needs and of course BI can't replace _all of_ the welfare system but it significantly reduces a lot of complexity.

In my opinion, the potential effects of a BI are far greater than just redistributing wealth (which the tax-sponsored welfare system already does). It raises the barrier from zero to a liveable wage. IMO this entirely eliminates the need for minimum wages and drastically changes the dynamics of the job market. It significantly reduces the inequality in the labour/capital struggle -- it eliminates the major social factor of "will I lose all of my possessions and ruin my family's lives" from fundamental job decisions.

Instead of having to worry about your (and your family's) continued financial and social existence when you lose your job (or your company tanks or whatever) you have a built-in financial safety net making sure that even if you do fall, you won't hit rock bottom.

Basically it's "rich parents for everyone".

> everyone thinks "I'll get more" or "they'll get more"

But that's not what it's about. In all likelihood, if implemented correctly, most people will get pretty much what they have now or maybe less. But as with existing unemployment and welfare systems, BI guarantees that you won't be out on the street if your employment situation changes. Unlike most existing unemployment or welfare systems, BI also creates a smooth transition for when you do find a new job (or start a new company).

It's a zero sum game. It has to be. Everybody can't be better off financially merely because of a universal basic income. It's the market dynamics that change, not the amount of money in the system.

You're basically arguing against welfare, not against the BI. BI is no more about closing the gap between the rich and the poor than welfare is. It's like socialised healthcare (a recent import from communist East Bloc countries like the UK): it's not about helping you when you're already fine, it's about preventing your life from being ruined when you're not fine anymore.

> it's not popular to disprove BI here

You're merely _disapproving_ , not disproving. That's why you get the downvotes.

</comment><comment><USER40> They just want to set 0 level a bit higher. Basically having basic income will be considered as having nothing. What a stupid idea.

</comment><comment><USER41> Typical Hacker News comment section on something innovative and something that takes the next step in global economy; "I don't know.", "hmm, looks like a bad idea.", "yeah, it doesn't affect me so I guess it's pretty bad."

</comment><comment><USER42> This always reminds me of that quote "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury."[1]

1\. presumably someone did actually write or say this at some point, seems to be unclear as to who that person was.

<comment><USER43> I did the googling for you:

<<[It] is a variant expression of a sentiment which is often attributed to Tocqueville or Alexander Fraser Tytler, but the earliest known occurrence is as an unsourced attribution to Tytler in "This is the Hard Core of Freedom" by Elmer T. Peterson in The Daily Oklahoman (9 December 1951)>>

Source: [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville)

<comment><USER42> Yep, I've done the Googling a few times and as I looked further in to the attribution change it became progressively unclear. Not sure how much we should trust an "unsourced attribution".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> So i should work so that a lazy bum gets my money? Seems like a plan. Or we just hand the money everyone and see hyperinflation?

<comment><USER44> The people who downvote could elaborate on how this magnificient plan should work. And why it should be implemented? Because communism on paper also seems like a valid idea and then millions die

<comment><USER45> Plans in general fail as soon as they hit cold reality. There will be problems with implementation, inglorious watered-down compromises, corruption, unforeseen consequences, etc. The funny thing is though that political radicals will not view their original plan as flawed, only the 'deviations' from that plan.

For example, some communists would argue that the reason communism failed was because it deviated from the "paper" version. See 'actually existing communism' and the Nomenklatura (New Class) for more information.

<comment><USER44> How much more genocides are needed before some crazy idealists realize that communism is a utterly dangerous idea that has little to do with reality? We had/have the Soviets, NK, China, Cambodia and few others with the toll in tens of millions (or more than a hundred) and some entitled middle-upper class pricks still want to "save the world" with this flawed to the core idea?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> bmir-alum-007 The next concern of implementation: extremely common for people whom aren't good with money tend to not budget or buy what they need, and end up in crises of failure-to-plan ahead (economists call them "high MPC"). Some people will need guidance as to what to buy. Others won't.

A related concern is when people whom aren't good with money suddenly receive a pile of it: the sad Anna Nicole Smith syndrome: excesses in all things apart from improving or acquiring basic necessities. It's common in human nature to really screw up, and it literally kills some people. There has to be some programs/assistance which can offer/help locate specific recommendations and get people out of a bind at least once.

Hopefully, it can be implemented in a way which reduces risks of negatives and offers useful, advantageous advice without treating people as children or dipping into their privacy without permission.

<comment><USER46> > The core question of basic income is: if people work, do they lose it > entirely?

That's not a question in basic income. If you would lose it when you start working, that's just basically your standard welfare system. Basic income is by definition given to everyone without discrimination.

To compensate, you adjust tax levels. In my country you don't pay tax the first few thousand dollars. You can remove that. Then you can increase the tax rate a bit, especially in the higher brackets. Then you end up with most people getting the same net income after taxes and basic income. And you get a smooth and bureaucracy-less progression from unemployment to full employment.

I agree with your comment on people not being good with money or budgets. You would still need some social support system for people with issues or mental disability. Perhaps the government could be granted the power to take some of the income and putting it directly towards housing.

<comment><USER47> Increasing taxes "a bit" in the higher bracket does not have proportional effects. Beyond a certain level the higher brackets simply opt out of paying taxes - and this level is not much higher than the price of a competent accountant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I suggest we use basic income to even pay wall street ceos - and here is why.

Give everyone a salary that allows them to afford food and rent. Including rich wall street bankers. This will help unsigmatize the "welfare queen" factor.

Second - since we have this habit of treating humans as lab rats and need to dangle "incentives" to drive them to be productive. Create a sliding scale on top that goes from 0 to S_max.

Everyone from the Walton family members to Jeff bozz gets paid S_max + food + rent and every homeless person gets paid 0 + food + rent.

If the overall GDP of the country improves S_max goes up. If there is food shortages or housing shortages then S_max does down.

<comment><USER49> There's a different matter though; Wall Street bankers implies they live in NY, where the cost of living is enormous; the basic income as described in this and similar articles wouldn't be nearly enough to cover even half of the cheapest cost of living.

<comment><USER39> And you need to live in expensive places because why exactly? Because the jobs are there. And why do you need to be where the jobs are? Because you need a job. And why do you need a job? Because you need to pay for your livelihood. And why do you still worry about that when you have BI?

Sure, some people still might want to do the kind of jobs you can only find in places with astronomical costs of living, but even BI can't prevent you from making unsound decisions like taking a job in an expensive place for a wage that barely pays your cost of living.

What BI can do, however, is eliminate the necessity of taking on that job or moving to that expensive place. And maybe if you can't find a job in the places you can afford to live, you just start your own company and create jobs for other people who can't afford to move to those places.

BI changes dynamics. I'm not saying people will stop moving to NY to work low income jobs but at least they have less incentives to do silly things like that.</comment></comment></comment>


Illicit Nightclub in a Chelsea Water Tower - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/nyregion/illicit-nightclub-in-a-chelsea-water-tower.html <comment><USER2> Cool. A little scarey. Easy to imagine abuse.

Like the internet, it becomes harder to contain wild ideas in a large, impersonal society. For better AND for worse.</comment>