I’m a proponent of UBI, so I suspect we’re on the same side of this argument. Still, it seems to me you’re arguing a straw man. You claimed, “It does not incre

I’m a proponent of UBI, so I suspect we’re on the same side of this argument. Still, it seems to me you’re arguing a straw man. You claimed, “It does not increase the amount of money in circulation”, and that was all chimeracoder was arguing with. You’re responding as if chimeracoder was arguing increasing the velocity of money will automatically cause runaway price inflation. That’s not what chimeracoder was arguing, though. As it happens, I think you’re both right, the relevant value for economic activity is the money supply times velocity of money, UBI would likely modestly increase velocity of money but not money supply, the increase in their product would likely cause a modest inflationary shock. That shock would probably be somewhat offset by dramatic increases in geographic mobility and changes in the distribution and supply of low wage labor for unpleasant jobs. Sensitivity to housing costs would change in unknown ways, with landlords reaping somewhere between modest and huge windfalls in low housing supply areas, and likely smaller windfalls in areas closer to supply/demand balance, which would tend to make areas with good housing supply more appealing.