This is a welcome article and comprehensive in its scope, the conclusion it has to be said is Political and the Context is founded wholly in the present monetary paradigm. The Article being in the present monetary paradigm is suprising for a tech based piece given that Cryto Currencies and decentralised distributed network systems being such a hot area in the computer world right now.

The Swiss Refernedum on Citizens Basic Income earlier this year was rejected by the Swiss Voters, this is largely due to the misunderstood question of how best to pay for a UBI.

´´However, the nearly universal misunderstanding of money is a major obstacle. For too long we’ve allowed a small coterie of bankers and “court economists” to hold the secrets and “tutor” us. So, it’s time for total openness.
First, regarding the claim that the Swiss proposal would’ve been too costly, what’s entirely omitted from the discussion is that the proposal (and similar proposals elsewhere) appear to call for re-distribution of existing money — taking money from certain sectors through taxation and re-allocating it to the people at-large.
The implication is that the money supply is basically static and that re-distributing limited funds would require tough budget decisions — sparking tax hikes and associated spending increases in several areas; hence the claim “costs too much.”
But a successful basic-income plan can and must be based on the creation of new money, or “distributism,” not on reshuffling existing money, which is “re-distributism.” That’s the “state secret” that no one wants to touch.’’

It is not just politics that is lacking in much of the libertarian dogma of the silicon valley types it is also Economics and in-fact that old fashioned fusion of the Two ‘Political Economy’. This is nothing new in the bourgoise eltitist circles of The US and Washington Consensus states.

Here is John Ruskin from Untio this Last on the question.

‘’ Pardon me. Men of business do indeed know how they themselves
made their money, or how, on occasion, they lost it. Playing a
long-practised game, they are familiar with the chances of its
cards, and can rightly explain their losses and gains. But they
neither know who keeps the bank of the gambling-house, nor what
other games may be played with the same cards, nor what other
losses and gains, far away among the dark streets, are
essentially, though invisibly, dependent on theirs in the lighted
rooms. They have learned a few, and only a few, of the laws of
mercantile economy; but not one of those of political economy.´´

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/08/neo-liberalism-billy-no-mates-or-just.html

Money and Usury go hand in hand in the current system and provide a terrible yardstick by which to measure and monitor commercial or socio economic progress. I applaud this article for its questioning but, long as it is it hardly begins to scratch the surface. The whole system is broken and all starting assumptions are suspect at this point in time. I suggest anyone interested in these questions read, Tradgedy and Hope by Carrol Quiqqley and debt the first 5000 years by David Graeber. Its not the Economy Stupid, its not even just the Moeny creation system, its the Usury!