> The way that question was worded was a straw man. I’m referring to a general principle regarding transfer payments. They’re usually more simple ways to reach

> The way that question was worded was a straw man. I’m referring to a general principle regarding transfer payments. They’re usually more simple ways to reach a desired outcome than alternatives. Yes, and I'm explaining that that statement isn't true (in the sense of consensus among economists) in any way that is applicable to public policies. Certainly not this one, because that's explicitly not a dichotomy being proposed - there's no tradeoff being proposed between the $1000 stipend and all of the other forms of public assistance that the participants could be or are receiving. It's only true (in the sense of consensus) on a micro level, looking at the value to an individual of cash vs. in-kind payments, ignoring secondary factors, ignoring externalities, and ignoring positive or negative feedback. That's not a relevant framework when discussing public policy.