I think issuing money will always be a controversial proposition - at least within the endemic value-system. Even if people rationally understand the need for i

I think issuing money will always be a controversial proposition - at least within the endemic value-system. Even if people rationally understand the need for it and the requirement of a consumer class, the idea of "money for nothing" will not sit easy emotionally. I think we're more likely to see something akin to corporate sponsorship of a consumer class - rather than the consumers being given money to spend, they are given goods and services either free or heavily reduced directly by corporations, either subsidised by the state via tax or directly provided via regulatory requirement (unlikely this would be entirely voluntary). This weeks food is bought to you by Purdue and Country Kitchen Buffet. Your new jacket is bought to you by Walmart. From this, you also end up with a secondary barter economy - people trading their free crap for less common crap. This way you achieve subsidence for the masses, maintain consumer capitalism, and rather than there being envy and anger at people getting "money for nothing", they are instead seen as a subclass of "lazy unworthy poor in their rightful place". The corporates accept it because it builds brand loyalty, grows a new generation of consumers, keeps people just upwardly mobile enough in a world where the majority live by trading crap to keep them mollified and in the hamster wheel. Maybe one day I can own a robotic forge! Then I'll be rich! There may be places where monetary UBI exists, but I don't think it'll be a majority system. A simulacra of an economy will do just fine as long as it keeps power concentrated.