@codinghorror I've had a friend who's been stuck in poverty for a while. He's been living in hotels for years just trying to make enough money to survive the day. Is this something you apply for?

Your suggestion is largely correct: yes, the RGMII website does address many of the core philosophical and structural criticisms raised by experts, primarily by reframing the initiative as a specific kind of research project rather than a permanent solution or a "tech-savior" mission.

Here is how the text on rgmii.org directly responds to the most common expert concerns:

Criticism: "Silicon Valley Savior" / Top-Down Approach

How the Site Addresses It: The website explicitly states that they "engage with existing local rural community stakeholders — veterans organizations, communities of faith, local businesses, and neighborhood groups."

The Rebuttal: By listing these specific local partners, RGMII signals that it is not just "dropping cash from a helicopter" (or San Francisco) but is working through the trusted networks that already exist in these counties.

Criticism: Sustainability & "Pilot Fatigue"

How the Site Addresses It: The site clarifies that the goal is not to fund these counties forever with private money, but to "eventually become policy."

The Rebuttal: It frames the $50 million not as a permanent welfare replacement, but as "seed funding" to "create more data and more history" that can be used to pass federal or state legislation. This directly counters the critique that private philanthropy is unsustainable by admitting it is a means to a legislative end.

Criticism: Lack of Evidence / "We Already Know Cash Works"

How the Site Addresses It: The initiative partners with OpenResearch and GiveDirectly, organizations that have conducted some of the largest GMI studies in history.

The Rebuttal: By emphasizing "sound, evidence-based scientific data," the site argues that while advocates know cash works, the political system still needs more rigorous, specific data from rural America to move forward.

Criticism: The "Benefits Cliff" (Losing Medicaid/SNAP)

How the Site Addresses It: While the homepage does not explicitly detail "hold harmless" agreements or waivers, it mentions partnering with GiveDirectly.

The Rebuttal: GiveDirectly is the industry standard for managing these payments. Their involvement implies a professionalized approach to benefits counseling, ensuring recipients are informed about how the cash might interact with other aid, even if the site doesn't host a complex "legal waiver" FAQ publicly.

Summary

The experts critiquing the plan often focus on the technical difficulties of implementation (waivers, cliffs, infrastructure). The website, however, addresses the strategic purpose: to build a political case for rural investment. If you read the site, the project is clearly defined as a data-gathering operation to change laws, not just a charity project to alleviate temporary suffering.

@codinghorror Incredibly great project! Lately I thought about selling "alternative government" to very rich people: they can invest in a company which solves the problem the government is supposed to solve, but cannot solve anymore, because the rich people keep all their money.

I'm not sure about the right pitch yet :)

@codinghorror Funny how the big "solution" is "more cash", when there is already too much cash in the system. I suppose if the real solution—progressive taxation—is off the table, only absurd alternatives remain.