> What we cannot have in the economy, is a large, and potentially exponentially growing, group of expenses without any useful work. I'm no economist, but that

> What we cannot have in the economy, is a large, and potentially exponentially growing, group of expenses without any useful work. I'm no economist, but that proposition seems flawed. Income support for people without jobs has more-or-less worked in western countries, in that those people aren't starving to death and are actually buying things. It has similar advantages and disadvantages as other non-investment costs: but x million people decide how to spend the money instead of the government. A feasible way for it to fail would be if enough people decided to stop working and rely on basic income, leading to not enough produced goods and rapid inflation, essentially make basic income too low. I think this is highly unlikely to happen, practically because there will always be people incentivised to work because they will earn more money, and morally because people seek fulfillment in live, and a large amount of people find that in their jobs.