[Chris2048]

I suppose this depends on whether UBI is supposed to be a form of welfare, adding a buffer against unemployment, and greasing the wheels of the economy; or if it's supposed to be a star-trekkian form of post-scarcity neo-economy.

Assuming the former; I see a big problem in that the desired outcome: "people gain more bargaining power" as unlikely so long as UBI is only a monetary pay-out.

power is relative. Universal anything can't fix that. It's like saying "everyone should be above average". If everyone got more money, money will just become less valuable. The only effect will be to piss off those with mostly monetary assets (who aren't in a position to sell-off before the change), and increase the value of non-monetary investments.

Instead, the focus should first be on the pinch-points, i.e. the scarce assets that money is intended to buy. Government housing projects, for example: leverage the large amounts of capital the government has by buying large lots of land and rapidly developing it. Create a large supply of basic housing w/ amenities, and allow this to apply market pressure naturally.

AFAIK, this is the kind of approach China is taking: large social projects for core infrastructure, high-speed national railways; entire cities built cheaply from scratch in remote areas. The large amount of capital pays off when these cities develop into more desirable locations, and unemployment/poverty is decreased.

[danaris]

Yes, power is relative. But with UBI, people gain power against corporations—because right now, corporations have massive power, and people have very little specifically due to our need to keep working in order to live.

With a genuine will-let-you-survive-indefinitely UBI, corporations lose that leverage over us.

[Chris2048]

> with UBI, people gain power against corporations

> With a genuine will-let-you-survive-indefinitely

I doubt that, for reasons outlined. Unless you address that, it is your unsubstantiated claim that this is the effect that UBI will have.

[danaris]

Oh, sorry; I missed that part of your reply.

I support a UBI that's paid for by increased taxation on the wealthy. Then it's not actually increasing the money supply, just redistributing it.

I also don't buy the argument that even with a UBI fully funded by printing more money, all the benefit would be eaten up by inflation (though certainly, much more would be than if it were paid for by increased taxation). I don't believe that's how inflation works in practice.