[imtringued]

>Ultimately, UBI doesn’t create more resources in an economy - it just makes more nominal cash flow through it.

You're assuming a competitive equilibrium. At that point you have reached optimality and it is impossible to improve, which then leads to the apparent conclusion that doing anything at all can make things only worse, not better.

"The current allocation of money is perfect. Optimality demands that these people stay homeless."

Only to then be disproven by this study as it proved net societal savings, which is impossible under the competitive equilibrium model.

The thing about assuming competitive is that it implies either that rational actors are non deterministic turing machines or P = NP.

[clnq]

> You're assuming a competitive equilibrium

No. That’s a different topic. I’m saying that it doesn’t matter how we distribute money — there is a finite number of real value in an economy.