> unnecessary to the economy I don't think that's the message of UBI. While one could view it somewhat as a charitable policy, with a more cold outlook it's a

> unnecessary to the economy I don't think that's the message of UBI. While one could view it somewhat as a charitable policy, with a more cold outlook it's a good policy as a mechanism to make free-market capitalism function more robustly. Think of it like re-balancing your portfolio. Some people don't like calling humans capital or assets, saying that's cold-hearted. If you don't mind that word choice, then it's relatively easy to explain UBI as promoting the long-term health of the economy. Contrary to the message of "unnecessary to the economy," UBI is important precisely because the recipients are critical to the health of the economy. > assuming it will work for everyone I don't think most people think it will work for everyone. Almost no policy is perfect. > It’d surely be hard to build a democracy on such a divide Yes, that's what people were discovering in the late 19th century and early 20th century, and why many capitalist democracies began adopting anti-trust laws and social programs. For example, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Social Security Act in the US. I expect that UBI will have the opposite effect that you expect, helping alleviate inequality. > I don’t know about the 2020 unemployment benefits as I don’t live in the US. They turned out to be a good policy. Despite fears that people would choose to not work, because they were receiving more money to stay at home, wages did not rise and job openings did not spike. On average. Some differences across industries and locations, of course.