> if you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly? > wouldn't it make more sense to heavily subsidise the basics?

> if you give everyone a fixed amount of money, won't the cost of things just rise accordingly? > wouldn't it make more sense to heavily subsidise the basics? Breaking this down a little: Industries with monopolist practices can be expected to raise their prices to capture more of this new income. I agree, that seems likely. In my mind, this would likely include housing/land ownership. By proposing to subsidise housing instead, you're proposing to effectively give this money directly to landlords instead of to everyone to have their own negotiating power and make their own decision. But, won't the cost still just rise accordingly, by your theory - won't landlords just pocket that money and demand even more? It seems more effective to trust people with their own money.