Property Rights, Patents, and the Destruction of the Market for "Collectables", or , 3D Printing Series Part 4

Another possible economic implication of 3D printing technology that I have been pondering today:  It is quite likely that 3D printing machines will (and already are) be (ing) used to circumvent many copyrights and reproduce protected/patented commodities.

One area that could be particularly hard hit is the market for "collectables".  This includes things such as vintage children's toys, "limited edition" figurines, etc.  As any collector knows, secondary markets for these types of goods can vastly inflate the price above the original "sticker". 

I will not get into the whole "transformation problem" debate here, or suggest that the secondary market prices are in any way (except of course a vague and complex overdetermined way) representative of the value of these goods.  Rather I will back up my point with an example: A search of EBay for "Star Wars Action Figure" followed by a sort of highest price to lowest shows numerous "toys" with active bids priced in the thousands of US dollars. 

These markets rely upon collectibility and extreme scarcity, artificially perceived or real, to keep  prices at these high levels. In the world of 3D printing I would imagine it is pretty easy to write a program to "print" a "vintage Yoda figurine" still in what appears to be original packaging. 

Just as digital media has faced extreme problems in protecting copyrights of commodities that can be easily reproduced at low cost by a vast number of people, I would imagine that 3D printing technology will begin to present the same problem to suppliers in many other markets over the next few years (the case of collectable toys given here is just one example). 

3D Printing and the Household: Implications for the Division of Labor

In what is becoming a series of posts about the possible implications of 3D printing;
Following the lead of the New York Times (as embarrassing as that is for a devotee of Zinn's, Manufacturing Consent such as myself) , I am turning my attention away from the implications of 3D printing on industrial class relations to comment on one of the possible implications of having these machines in our homes.

As this article from the Times website today points out these machines are becoming affordable, and are capable of producing many things that we need around the home.  The article cites fixing clocks, espresso machines, etc.

Is it possible that this technology may in a sense allow the modern household to return to frontier farm stead.  It is easy to imagine a not to distant future where we are again producing ourselves, in the household many of the "small" commodities that we purchase for daily life. This change would essentially be a move backwards in time in terms of the division of labor in society.  The definition of modern life is one of great specialization.

As I am fond of telling my students, "if I had to grow my own food, make my own clothing or generate my own electricity I would be dead in a week".  I specialize in reading, writing, teaching, and mixing cocktails.  The monetary gains from these few activities allow me to exchange for everything else that makes up the myriad of consumption that comprises my material existence.   

It is possible with an in home 3D printer that many "highly" specialized people such as myself will no longer need to exchange for much of the array small commodities that we use in our daily life, but rather "print" them in our own homes.  It is possible that the manufacture of relatively simple, inexpensive commodities may soon be relegated to the type of process that washing the dishes, making the bed, and sweeping the floor currently is for most of us in society; a processes completed in the home.  The production of commodities for use, that were never intended for exchange, may be making a comeback.  I am not meaning to suggest that rates of specialization in our paid labor will decrease, but rather specialization in certain areas of production will be rendered obsolete, forcing those currently engaged in production of many commodities based in plastics to evolve or face structural unemployment.   

What are the economic impacts of these machines?  I think it is clear that only time will tell, but it is not a big leap to suggest that the technology with the greatest impact on the organization of production since the personal computer may be here and structural unemployment of makers of household commodities is probably just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

The 3D Printer Revisited

The link below which connects to a paper by Yannick Rumpala of le Université de Nice was shared by an anonymous commenter on my recent post about the potentially economically destabilizing forces of 3D printing technology. 

Although I have a couple of methodological issues with the author's approach (especially around cause and effect in the sphere of political processes), the paper provides a solid background of what is at stake with 3D printing, as well much more detail on the technology itself than I feel is pertinent to share in the "quick-hit" realm of the blogisphere.

My original post has drawn enough interest that I would imagine there are many people out there who would like to know more about this topic.  As such, I recommend reading this to anyone who wants to dig deeper into this issue.  I especially would like to draw attention to the arguments around growing industrial autonomy in the modern economy as I feel this is potentially the greatest area of impact?

Thank you to the original commenter for sharing!
 http://millenniumjournal.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/rumpala-additive-manufacturing-as-global-remanufacturing-of-politics.pdf

3D Printing: Possibly a Fundamental Change to the Economy?

Both NPR in general and their podcast Planet Money (story here) have had numerous stories recently about the newish technology of 3D printing.  These printers are essentially duplicating machines a la Star Trek that use raw materials (matter) to create objects by running computer programs and essentially assembling complex objects by combining raw materials based upon computer programs.  The hope for development is that this technology will eventually be able to make organs, bones, etc. as well as complicated manufactured goods.

Health and well being implications aside, I found something remarkable in the Planet Money podcast.  They  mentioned that the 3D printing technology will dramatically lower barriers to entry in manufacturing, as the machines are not terribly expensive.  They of course (and are still in their early stages) cost thousands of dollars, but no millions of dollars. Even more remarkable in the story there was an open, honest and unabashed reference to Karl Marx.  The argument made is that in modern manufacturing the steps from prototype to producing for the market will no longer require massive capital investments just to start out. It could become possible to start a manufacturing firm with just the investment in a 3D Printer.  I couldn't believe my ears hearing Planet Money openly state that "to some degree this innovation of modern capitalism has the potential to put ownership of the means of production into the hands of the masses".  Essentially manufacturing capital could become accessable to a "middle class" member of society.  Using another definition of class, members of the proletariate may be able to afford high technology capital for manufacturing start up.  

I'm not suggesting that there is a major shift in class structure coming immediately out of 3D printing, there will still be owners and workers, and exploitation  present,  I don't think this means the end of capitalism or anything that dramatic, in the world of 3D printing, but the key point made in the story, was one common in  classical Marxism: Ownership of the means of production in highly developed manufacturing could become much more wide spread, thus less concentrated in the hands of the very wealthy.

If nothing else, I see some potential here for a reduction in the massive (and worsening) wealth inequality problem in the developed world. Our massive inequality problems stem in part from a system in which massive amounts of capital are required to start any kind of new product launch.  Is it possible that with 3D printing  that capitalism entrepreneurship  has innovated a product that will put ownership of the means of production into the hands of the masses?  Probably not...but it is a very intriguing idea!