> Then you increase UBI. That doesn't solve the problem I described. It makes it worse. See below. > If the problem is a society does not have enough means to

> Then you increase UBI. That doesn't solve the problem I described. It makes it worse. See below. > If the problem is a society does not have enough means to produce the basics like food/housing/energy, then that is a different discussion. But I am under the impression most developed countries can and do make enough of these things to keep their populations sheltered and fed. Most developed countries are that way now, but that's without UBI. If UBI were widely available, wealth creation would decrease, because much, if not most, wealth creation in any country is done by people who have to create wealth in order to earn a living. UBI means people no longer have to create wealth to earn a living--at least, that's what the sales pitch will be, and failure to achieve that in the short term will create huge political pressure to increase UBI until it appears to achieve it. But any such achievement can only be temporary. Now if we were to use advancing technology to make the necessities of life cheaper, that would indeed be progress--but it would be progress not by giving people handouts, but by making the necessities of life cheap enough that nobody needs a handout to get them.