[crdoconnor]

>I don't see how you can stop it triggering inflation to the point that the UBI sum becomes useless to live on

It will trigger inflation not only because there will be more money chasing the same goods, but also because wages will rise (if UBI is enough people now have fuck you money) which will have knock on effects on the price of goods up the value chain.

However, the idea that it necessarily has to trigger inflation to the point that the UBI sum is not enough to live on is wrongheaded.

First of all, it might never be set at a level that is enough to live on. E.g., typically when a Silicon Valley billionaire talks about UBI they almost always mean "take all welfare and redistribute it to everybody in the country". That will do jack shit - it will neither raise inflation nor give anybody enough to live on. If it were set at a level that was enough to live on it would hurt - for them. They'll fight that (I dont think people realize that this means that the political support for "real" BI is really very low).

Secondly, rich countries with rich economies would be very likely capable of absorbing the economic shock of everybody having fuck you money - economically I'd do more or less the same thing I do now (write software) if I had fuck you money and I'll bet most other people would too. People aren't going to sit on the couch and vegetate. They will largely still want to build, to be useful and to contribute to society - but hey, iPhones might cost $1,400. Meh.

[imtringued]

The "inflation" also primarily happens at the bottom of the market which decreases inequality.

A a poor person earning 10k a year gets 10k. total: 20k A rich person earning 100k a year gets 10k. total: 110k

Inequality has shrunk from 10x to 5.5x. That's a massive improvement.

[crdoconnor]

I don't doubt that inequality would go down and that that would be a good thing.

It would be difficult to ascertain exactly where the inflationary impact would hit though - there are way too many variables to account for - aggregate housebuilding, inflows of foreign capital, desirability of UK as a place to park capital and live, availability of arable land, potential future availability of oil, etc.

All you could really say is that it would be inflationary. Not how much, not where.

If it were to be brought in it should be brought in at a low level with automatic increases until it's enough to live on. If the inflationary impact is too much for the electorate to bear they ought to be able to vote it down.