[luckyisgood]

Actually, basic income does not encourage laziness (that's a common misconception based on our personal opinions which make sense from a certain point of view and from a confirmation bias). I'm currently researching basic income and the criticism that BI increases laziness is the most frequently repeated criticism for which I argue that it's invalid because it is based on personal opinion and not on fact.

Actual data and field experiments on basic income prove that people work more hours, that their income increases, that they visit hospitals on fewer occasions and that they spend money responsibly.

Sources: 1) http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 -> Dauphin Canada, 1974-1978 experiment -> only mothers with newborns and teenagers worked less.

2) http://www.usbig.net/bigblog/2013/08/important-study-finds-t... -> BI receivers worked 17% more hours and their annual income after two and a half years was 50% higher (they invested mental resources into building their own businesses or looking for better paying jobs).

Also, allow me to argue that the system would work even if most people did not actually contribute anything. How many Linux users are there, vs. how many developers contributed source to the Linux project? Only a tiny, tiniest fragment of the world developer population actually got off their butts and did something for Linux, and the rest of the world sat by and "leeched" off their work. And yet, Linux thrives. My argument is that we still don't have real data about how many people in % need to be productive for the society to be sustainable and progressive. I believe we grossly overestimate the % of people who need to be productive.

[yummyfajitas]

The Uganda experiment is rather different - it provided a large capital investment to individuals in a capital starved economy. Basically, it allowed people to invest in their business. The US is not a capital starved economy, so it is unlikely that the same would occur.

The actual report about Dauphin Canada would be useful here rather than some reporters interpretation of it. Among other things, the drop in work related injuries strongly suggests work did go down, as do the anecdotes of people who "could wait for something [work] that better suited them." Anyone know where to find the real report? It does sound interesting.

The example of linux contributors compared to the development world is not really indicative of the economy at large. Software is infinitely reproducible, unlike most goods and services.

[chipsy]

It's not that capital here doesn't exist - it's just concentrated to a toxic degree. Warren Buffett is a smart investor, but he can't squeeze the most out of every dollar, not at the scale he's obligated to invest at. Scale - especially the bespoke, "too big to fail" kind - invites waste.

Capital requirements in the US are also higher. In Uganda, people can become significantly wealthier and improve their standard of living simply by having a few chickens. But in the US, individuals are taking on debt just to have enough education to get a job! And the level of spending needed to operate in most US industries is similar to the costs of college education. Like you point out, software is exceptional in this respect since it has an extremely low capex - so we can conclude that, in fact, individuals are capital starved in the US as well.

[sseveran]

With Linux my using it imposes a cost no different on those that develop it than not using it other than the bandwidth of the person I download it from.