> That's not the point. An apartment in a dense, tall building in SF will still cost more than an apartment in a dense, tall building almost anywhere else. Who

> That's not the point. An apartment in a dense, tall building in SF will still cost more than an apartment in a dense, tall building almost anywhere else. Who gets to live in SF if too many people want to? A random lottery for high demand low supply places. > So your UBI discriminates against people who can't drive, who are oftentimes the people most in need. Also, it promotes massive waste, since I'll ask for a car even if I don't need one - why not, if I don't gain anything by giving it up? Nothing wrong with public transportation, people use it all the time and much easier than parking anyway. When you’re giving stuff away you always have to accept people wasting it. Just factor it in and move on. > Right, but "reasonable" will depend on geography (for heat/cooling), needs, etc, no? How many jobs will be required to calculate that for the 3000+ counties in the US? Of course. This will need very few jobs, it’s just basic data analysis based on historical usage. Very automated. > So you're producing and distributing a bunch of clothes, cars, etc, which will then be sold to companies (for low prices, obviously, since everyone has them) which will export them to other countries. Nice corporate subsidy. The WTO might have something to say about your unfair competition practices. Considering it’s the only basic car people can get I doubt they will just sell it off so easily. Government can always buy it back too, cheaper than making a new one. Plus regulation can easily block export of basic cars. Clothes don’t matter, people get a basic wardrobe with a few good durable pieces, not an endless closet.