In theory, the government is only bearing the cost for people who want to depend on socialized meals, which is different from giving everyone $500/month. With U

In theory, the government is only bearing the cost for people who want to depend on socialized meals, which is different from giving everyone $500/month. With UBI, people are also putting that money back in the private sectors. With socialized meal programs, the government lean on the wealthy to ensure everyone has access to food, and uses that to employ people in the public sector. > Both are equally prone to be inflationary as they require workers to provide the food and shelter without receiving anything real in return. I'm not sure I follow why this would be inflationary, but it's also not what I was suggesting. Even if this does lead to more inflation though, it ensures the government is responsible for securing food and housing for everyone, rather than something like UBI which might result in people who can't find work not actually being able to afford the essentials.