[lifeisstillgood]

The most obvious response to this is “why give out money?” Why not “universal basic services “?

Providing the basics of life via a modern welfare system (like most of the developed world), or provide regulations that reduce inequality and spread the wealth

Just giving out money does seem like it lacks imagination for people who think state services can only be provided by private sector (and co-incidentally the wealthy will own the private providers hence getting the money)

[stuaxo]

People need more than the services the state provides.

Under the current system huge amounts to of people don't have the money to participate in the economy.

Give them money and they will spend it, local businesses get to grow and the multiplier effect should mean it more than pays for itself.

[kelipso]

They will spend it all on rent or mortgage because rent will increase by exactly the same amount that UBI will provide.

[sjs382]

Universal Basic Trickle-Down Economics

[schnitzelstoat]

The private sector does it more efficiently.

Would you have a state-run grocery store?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> The private sector does it more efficiently.

I think this is a misconception.

In the absence of private actors, the tendency of the state-run actor is to be inefficient. However, efficiency is not the only goal, and it should not be the state's main goal. Otherwise, you won't e.g. have emergency services capacity in reserve for rare but severe events. They get cut for "efficiency ".

In the absence of state actors, the tendency of private actors is to maximise profits and extract rents. But this is not the best thing for the larger society.

Therefor, the presence of each keeps the other honest. Specifically, we must distinguish the presence of state-run grocery stores from the straw man that you construct where there are only state-run grocery stores.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Would you have a state-run grocery store?

Apparently, yes: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/30/business/zohran-mamdani-g...

[JohnFen]

> The private sector does it more efficiently.

This gets said a lot, but only rarely does it seem to be true. Depending on what you mean by "efficiently", I suppose.

[xg15]

Who will define exactly what services are provided and how?

[thisislife2]

Right to Food, Right to Education, Right to Healthcare, Right to Housing should be the bare minimum.

[Ekaros]

Food is probably the one where free market will do better. Or what should universal basic food look like? And how would it operate?

With education and healthcare. Well good enough systems already exist as examples. So nothing really to do there with UBI receivers spending payments.

Housing is more balanced question, but maybe involving money with public housing could allow better allocation. More popular locations being more expensive and less popular cheaper. Thus moving demand around.

[krapp]

>Just giving out money does seem like it lacks imagination for people who think state services can only be provided by private sector (and co-incidentally the wealthy will own the private providers hence getting the money)

I think UBI is a concession to this unfortunate political reality. In the US (and maybe the UK I don't know, they seem to love privatizing everything now) universal basic services are an absolute existential impossibility. Americans hear that and they imagine Stalinism and mass graves.

A better argument against UBI, to me, would be that it would only pass muster with voters under the Devil's deal of repealing all existing social services (and likely privatizing them) to cut government expenditures, and so it would never be enough to allow people to afford those services to begin with.

It would also cease to be universal. Voters would demand means testing and governments would attach strings and limitations in order to keep money out of the hands of immigrants and the indigent poor, as welfare policies often reflect systemically racist biases. And of course there would be corruption and grift at all levels.

And I'm saying this as someone who supports UBI as a concept. I think coupling people's access to the economy (and in the US, to healthcare and education) entirely to the value the market can extract from them is a moral evil. Food deserts are a moral evil. But I absolutely don't trust the US to implement UBI in any way that doesn't somehow benefit the rich and punish everyone else.